Matrix Games Forums

Civil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now available
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Improving the game

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Improving the game Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Improving the game - 12/27/2007 9:21:23 AM   
Camile Desmoulins


Posts: 115
Joined: 9/15/2003
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
The game is very good, but I think that could improve adding two changes:

a) Fleets retreat: This is an authomatic process. I've probe it, with a combat in Area18, with three ports (Brest, Lorient and La Rochelle) to choose. I had Brest garrisoned with a french Corps, and La Rochelle with a little garrison (1I), Lorient empty. Best option Brest, worse option Lorient (although she has better harbor defence than La Rochelle). The french fleet retreat to Lorient. If I would made the movement in the french phase, the british could made a dissembark in Lorient and destroy her without losses.

I think that the fleets has a role too much important in the game to allow sunk her for a authomatic retreat. Some things usually less important (f.e. bessiege combats) allow four possibilities to choose. You would have retreat possibilities for the fleets.

b) Combined movement and sequence of play: Is an important part of the game. Alliance against a major power (f.e. France) need coordination, and in the board game you can change the sequence to play, for move in the last in the phase (7.1.2 in the board game original rules). Moving ever with the same sequence gives a huge adventage to the solitaire major power and you must have a big trust in your allies, because he can move in different way as you speak. In the original game you never lost the corps control, unless you loan the corps because a peace.

I think that it would be a good improve, the possibility to change the sequence of play if you declare combinated movement

_____________________________

"Scis vincere, nescis uti victoria" (Maharbal)
Post #: 1
RE: Improving the game - 12/28/2007 9:43:35 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
you can do b) now but you must decide when you will move in the diplomacy phase. combined moves can only happen through loaned corps, fleets cannot be loaned.

(in reply to Camile Desmoulins)
Post #: 2
RE: Improving the game - 12/28/2007 1:08:45 PM   
Camile Desmoulins


Posts: 115
Joined: 9/15/2003
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

you can do b) now but you must decide when you will move in the diplomacy phase. combined moves can only happen through loaned corps, fleets cannot be loaned.


Of course, you can loan to the earlier or the later major power. But I refer to make the movement in the same sequence (first one, after the other), and the solve the supply and the combat.

_____________________________

"Scis vincere, nescis uti victoria" (Maharbal)

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 3
RE: Improving the game - 12/28/2007 1:17:56 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Camile:

The combined movement creates all sorts of tech issues in PBEM / potential IP. Making two nations active at the same time in a move phase is difficult to say the least. This is one of those situations where the board game couold handle it a little better (Simply tell everybody that you and Russia are moving at the same time). I understand what you are saying and if I can ever figure a way to do this efficiently then I will!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Camile Desmoulins)
Post #: 4
RE: Improving the game - 12/29/2007 6:21:11 PM   
nappy

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline
The only way I could see this done in game is that a player would be able to somehow "flag" certain corps to accept movement orders from another (later phasing) allied player during their movement step. In a way acting as temporary corps on loan. These corps could be highlighted on the map during that phasing players turn. I think we already have a corps loan system so I would probably advise using that if you want to build the "allied stack of doom"

V

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 5
RE: Improving the game - 12/29/2007 9:48:19 PM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Loaned units still require the borrower to grant full access rights to allow the lended units to go through the borrower's territory, correct?

(in reply to nappy)
Post #: 6
RE: Improving the game - 12/29/2007 10:47:05 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Loaned units still require the borrower to grant full access rights to allow the lended units to go through the borrower's territory, correct?


That’s correct.

Richard

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 7
RE: Improving the game - 1/4/2008 10:55:42 PM   
Camile Desmoulins


Posts: 115
Joined: 9/15/2003
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Camile:

The combined movement creates all sorts of tech issues in PBEM / potential IP. Making two nations active at the same time in a move phase is difficult to say the least. This is one of those situations where the board game couold handle it a little better (Simply tell everybody that you and Russia are moving at the same time). I understand what you are saying and if I can ever figure a way to do this efficiently then I will!


I Undesrstand it, but I think that, at least, a change in the game order (althought it's not be another thing) make the movement easier than, for example, move combinated Russia (1st) with Spain (6th). Also, the change in movement sequence gives more possibilities to the allied (imagine, for example, in the previous case, France, in war against both major powers, moving between them)

Camille

_____________________________

"Scis vincere, nescis uti victoria" (Maharbal)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 8
RE: Improving the game - 1/4/2008 11:12:15 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
What about having the second power move right after the initiating power when combined movement were done?
i.e. If Russia declared combined movement with Spain and Spain did the same in her diplomacy phase (Indicating they both agree) then the land move order would be Russia then Spain?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Camile Desmoulins)
Post #: 9
RE: Improving the game - 1/5/2008 1:12:46 AM   
praem


Posts: 214
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline
Marshall. That is quite close to the EiA way of doing combined move - however if Russia and Spain dosnt figth in the same round, it takes away the possibility of moving into a combined stack for offensive battle.
The best way to do it, would be for Russia to move and declare any battles - then allow Spain to move, including into the allready declared battles and then when both have done the land phase, one of the powers does the combat phase
there is an issue of who gets to control the battles - would think the MP with most corps in a battle? perhaps with limits on casualty allocation

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 10
RE: Improving the game - 1/5/2008 1:38:20 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about having the second power move right after the initiating power when combined movement were done?
i.e. If Russia declared combined movement with Spain and Spain did the same in her diplomacy phase (Indicating they both agree) then the land move order would be Russia then Spain?


One overlooked powerful featurs of combined movement was actually the limited ability of double movement (just as france). This is a major reason to for example allying spain for countries that normally move early in the round if you are at war with someone moving between you.

Not that i know how its implemented but as the funktion of change your turn is implemented for france alot of the code must be written already. the only part that should be needed to be resolved jointly is the combat phase mmm im not totally correct supply is also an issue if we are foraging but i would be able to live with that even if its not 100% correct. The major obstacle i guess is to solve how you can pay for foreign corps with your depots wich is almost needed to make this combined movement stuff effective.

I however really hope that any implementation of combined movement follow the move with (or rather in conjuction with for easier implementation) the last phasing player concept from the boardgame

regards

z

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/5/2008 1:46:21 AM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 11
RE: Improving the game - 1/5/2008 2:50:03 AM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
combined movement could from what i see be done, but would need a bit of a change still.

if Russia and spain does it, they both move last really, because spain is generally last in naval and land, but since one of them have to move first nomatter what, you could make it so that russia moves their stuff just before spain and then spain move his and then combat happens.

so would require game to disregard a combat phase, until those in combined movement have been sorted out.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 12
RE: Improving the game - 1/5/2008 6:34:31 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
The combined combat phase could cause a problem in the current engine design. Definitely some tweaking involved :-0



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to DodgyDave)
Post #: 13
RE: Improving the game - 1/5/2008 7:32:37 PM   
yammahoper@yahoo.com

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline
Well, if combined movement is done via the original rules (a good idea, if possible.  I finally borrowed a corp as spain, GB cav corp, and that corp made all the diference too in the fight, but cost me $7 to borrow, for one month, PLUS supply.  Hard to afford as Spain), it might be easier to program every corp being manually supplied/foraged.  Otherwise, a pop up asking who pays for what corp would be needed, covering all corps.

Of course, I am not a programmer, so I have no idea if one option is easier/harder to program than the other.  The only dificult programming I can imagine is when the program must make a "smart" desicion based on a multitude of variable variable's...whew.

yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Improving the game 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

0.077