Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What about 1.04

 
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 >> RE: What about 1.04 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 7:06:03 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.

BTW: I fixed the security issue you noted last night by only displaying the current player's estimated pp total. No others are visible.




Just allow (instead of REQUIRE) a player the option of loading any
preceeding turn files that they might
have before processing their turn. This way; if France wants to wait to see what a
particular player did before doing his reinforcements; he can - but someone
who doesn't care what others have done can "jump the queue" & do their turn
ahead of time.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 31
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 7:17:09 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 653
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: Watertown, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius


These would certainly be easier. I cannot see why diplomacy couldn't be this way. As for the eco phase, I must ask for opinions from a typical Russian and Turkish player as to if for example:
Should Russia see the unit LEVY of Turkey in December which would happen before Russia's eco phase and what eco decisions might this affect?




Hello Marshall:

I have never played Russia, but have played Turkey once or perhaps ten times. I have never had the levy step be visable to other players as my feudal corps are usually stood down in the winter and, unless in a active campaign, in the economic phase to save supply and maintenance costs. So, from a Turkish perspective, I would not hold up any contemporaneous economic movement due to any Levy function. At the greatest limitation, this combined economic phase should be an option.

We should strive to speed up the game. I'd love to hear what the Kaisers and the Czars have to say...

best
Mardonius



_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 32
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 7:50:24 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.


These issues only happen while trying to make reinforcement simultaneous. Econ and Diplo shouldn't be a problem.

However, there are OTHER problems that could crop up in diplo or econ. Or, maybe just diplo:

Powers who declare war may be being treated as being at war for numerical calculations, even though they are not yet at war.
Instability/Fiasco calculations may cause the loss of a minor that someone else might want to declare war upon.
Etc.

However, all of these are ALREADY issues (like, the security issue from last night). They need to be solved if only for that reason alone. Once the decision was made to make the diplo phase "act like" it was simultaneous, it needed to be fully treated that way, in all respects, at least to the outside world.

BUT, internally, the computer can store up all of the steps people went through, and then apply them in the right order. While there are issues that might come up, I can't think of any at this time.

Think of it like a draw poker game. If you deal five cards to each player, they form a poker hand. Each person gets to draw some cards to replace those in his hand. A champion poker player will base his decision of how to play partly upon how many cards the previous players drew. However, one could design a poker game where all of the players drew their cards at once, say, if we wanted to play by email. They still would receive the cards in the order the cards were on the top of the deck. But, none of the actions would occur until all of the players had turned in their orders. Then, everybody would see all of the changes at once.

Now, this poker game loses a bit of the skill of draw poker. However, playability would be enhanced, because all X players could draw at the same time.

The same principle applies to EiA. Only there are far more interactions. Some interactions could impact other decisions. But, theoretically, players shouldn't be able to see that information now anyhow.

Now, back to reinforcement: A similar mindset COULD be applied. But, first, one must determine all of the possible interactions that could invalidate a player's choices. For example, having two forces in the same area. But, in regards to the whole game as a unit, these instances are quite rare. They can be handled by exception processing TO THE TURN ORDER:

Let's say you use my idea of reinforcement: Five powers go simultaneously, and then GB, and finally France. Before the reinforcement phase starts, determine all of the possible locations on the map where there could be a conflict. ALL of them.

Then, for each one, force those two players to be done sequentially, but leave the remainder of the players simultaneous.

It is never possible to need an order change between two warring powers. This is because all areas and cities have to be solely occupied by one power or the other (rural areas are separate from cities, for this purpose).

Allies, however, can trip each other up. They can be in the same territory. They can also be alone in a friend's country, where troops could appear. But, allies cannot change status to enemy during reinforcement.

So, all that needs to happen is have all spaces on the map checked for two forces (allied) and then special-case them: They go sequentially, as related to each other.

Using this method of thinking, basically, all powers are still going sequentially. However, the actual steps are not taken until all non-sequential nations have finished turning in their orders.

_____________________________

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 #: 33
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 7:58:25 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Why do people enjoy playing EIANW against an incapable computer program -- the AI - when human players are FAR superior...

Like he said, because it's faster. I want to play for 3 hours and be done. Against the AI, I can do that. Against humans, it's three hours between phase steps, at best.


Jimmer, since I have already been labeled an EIA purist, you need to understand that I already accepted to spend time playing the PBEM game - IMHO, I prefer the challenge of human opponents....

People who played EIA (the game) also made that time investment and understood it was required.

You have to admit that we (you and I) are talking about complete different subjects - play versus AI game is faster - but the quality of the game and its enjoyment level is very different. On this do we agree?

If it was possible to play a PBEM game in three hours, I am positive many people [I call them the AI faction] would never play against the AI ever again or very rarely at least. [ for a miracle - God, you listening?]

EIANW is kind of attempt of porting EIA to a computer game and to play over the Internet - I just did not buy it for a SOLO experience....this is where my comment comes from....

When I want a fast game, I also play the AI, but it is a wargame then...just a wargame....





(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 34
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 8:18:25 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5627
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars
Why do people enjoy playing EIANW against an incapable computer program -- the AI - when human players are FAR superior...

Like he said, because it's faster. I want to play for 3 hours and be done. Against the AI, I can do that. Against humans, it's three hours between phase steps, at best.


Jimmer, since I have already been labeled an EIA purist, you need to understand that I already accepted to spend time playing the PBEM game - IMHO, I prefer the challenge of human opponents....

People who played EIA (the game) also made that time investment and understood it was required.

You have to admit that we (you and I) are talking about complete different subjects - play versus AI game is faster - but the quality of the game and its enjoyment level is very different. On this do we agree?

If it was possible to play a PBEM game in three hours, I am positive many people [I call them the AI faction] would never play against the AI ever again or very rarely at least. [ for a miracle - God, you listening?]

EIANW is kind of attempt of porting EIA to a computer game and to play over the Internet - I just did not buy it for a SOLO experience....this is where my comment comes from....

When I want a fast game, I also play the AI, but it is a wargame then...just a wargame....


AresMars:

Don't be scared or offended but we sound similar in our EiANW exploits.





_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 35
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 8:43:15 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Jimmer, since I have already been labeled an EIA purist, you need to understand that I already accepted to spend time playing the PBEM game - IMHO, I prefer the challenge of human opponents....

People who played EIA (the game) also made that time investment and understood it was required.

You have to admit that we (you and I) are talking about complete different subjects - play versus AI game is faster - but the quality of the game and its enjoyment level is very different. On this do we agree?

If it was possible to play a PBEM game in three hours, I am positive many people [I call them the AI faction] would never play against the AI ever again or very rarely at least. [ for a miracle - God, you listening?]

EIANW is kind of attempt of porting EIA to a computer game and to play over the Internet - I just did not buy it for a SOLO experience....this is where my comment comes from....

When I want a fast game, I also play the AI, but it is a wargame then...just a wargame....


Good points.

On that point the quality and enjoyment, well, I don't think I want to state publicly whether I get any thrills out of beating a hapless AI into a pulp over and over again. Such a statement could be taken as, well, a psychological failing. Perhaps. Or, perhaps it would be taken as an admission that winning against humans is just too tough, so perhaps I get "victories" out of more hapless opponents. But, I will say this: I play Civ IV on the warlord level (two steps above amoeba, I think), but still enjoy it. :)

_____________________________

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 AresMars)
Post #: 36
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 8:44:45 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Don't be scared or offended but we sound similar in our EiANW exploits.

Psychologically, it's good to know we ... I mean YOU ... are not alone.



_____________________________

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 #: 37
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 8:59:37 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Marshall,

Why would I be scared or offended?

The chance of playing EIA with my friends again was an oppty I could not pass up and those very friends all bought the game for that same reason.

At first, we where shocked at how EiANW was not like EIA....it was a disappointment.

With time, our shock changed to resignation and we started a PBEM game.....there have been challenges but for the fun of playing together again, I (at least) feel that I am getting my money's worth....

Just the diplomacy alone brings back memories of the hours and hours spent in my basement playing Empire in Arms....20 something years passed very fast....

Your efforts are appreciated Marshall (as are the efforts of others that are helping you) - we shake our heads at times, but that is the nature of life and running a business.

Thank YOU!

AresMars

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 38
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/2/2008 3:55:44 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5627
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
AresMars:

Your kind words are appreciated. I shake my head a bit too :-) and that's not at you guys but at myself when an obvious oversite is brought to my attention. I don't take mistakes lightly and I do take it personally since it is my code and it came from my brain BUT at least the blame game is easier that way :-). You guys are so very helpful and patient that you have made my job much easier and I thank you for that!



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 39
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/4/2008 3:14:04 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1248
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Actually if you are looking for an assist; yes I would be interrested. I am VERY familer
with the old Turbo-Pascal (over 8 years) as well as a year of Delphi (tho it was
Delphi-3 ... its been awhile - been doing VB/FoxPro/SQL lately)

Guy



Guy,

If you're looking to help out you could assist me with a PBEM streamlining project that I'm working on outside of the EiANW game. It should be reasonably simple enough to implement provided you're familiar with web services/SOAP/WSDL etc or can grab a library that does it (I'm looking at writing the SOAP server but you would need to do the SOAP client as I'm not a Windows programmer).

PM me if you're interested.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 40
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/4/2008 4:02:30 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1720
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Maybe Matrix should include all source code when you buy this game? LOL. Seriously though, that would TOO SWEET!!!

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 41
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/4/2008 7:14:50 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5627
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Maybe Matrix should include all source code when you buy this game? LOL. Seriously though, that would TOO SWEET!!!


Version control is tough enough already. Chaos would ensue along with Dogs and Cats living together, etc. bla bla...









_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 42
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/4/2008 11:58:17 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1720
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Maybe Matrix should include all source code when you buy this game? LOL. Seriously though, that would TOO SWEET!!!


Version control is tough enough already. Chaos would ensue along with Dogs and Cats living together, etc. bla bla...










yeah, but if you provided the source then each group could have their own variation along with the original, so they could modify everything themselves: could add Internet play, scenarios, change anything and everything they wanted to........

of course, I understand from a business viewpoint why this is bad.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 43
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 3:31:02 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1248
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
of course, I understand from a business viewpoint why this is bad.


Do you? Some of the world's largest and most successful companies run using an open source model.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 44
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 4:09:31 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1720
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
of course, I understand from a business viewpoint why this is bad.


Do you? Some of the world's largest and most successful companies run using an open source model.


Yes, I do. Oh, you must mean MS......er, wait... no. No, you mean Apple, er, wait, no.

Yes, I understand there are successful OpenSource projects/businesses. There are many in fact, and for every one of them there are twice or more successful projects/businesses that aren't OpenSource.

If Matrix was to release this thing with Source Code, I doubt there would be much of a need for Matrix when it came to this game. The community would no doubt get most of the bugs fixed shortly thereafter, mods would be seen everywhere and the game would probably have both Internet play and classic EiA. Why would we need Matrix?

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 45
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 5:31:36 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5627
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Without Matrix there would be no source code. The origin of life for this project was Matrix Games! That's why we need Matrix Games.

Linux needed Torvalis(sp?) EiANW needed Matrix Games.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 46
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 5:45:40 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1720
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Marshall,

I don't get your point. I think that if you released the source code at it's current state, there would be no more need to MatrixGames.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 47
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 6:09:48 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
I suppose that's why RedHat is in business? After all, Linux is open source, so there should be no need for RedHat, right?

The open source model will not work for games (as a business model).

Some form of MODIFIED open-source might: Matrix retains control of the code (ALL of the code), but customers can submit fixes. But, I doubt it: There are too many idiots in the gaming community for even that to work. (Idiot, in this context, means people who think they know what they are doing, but do not.)

Furthermore, game players are well known as the computer industry's bane: There are more pirated copies of games in existence than any other kind of software. Trusting the typical gamer with source code would be completely foolish on Matrix' part. The source code would get posted, and then bootleg copies of the game would show up. Within hours, I suspect.

The only way it would work is if all of the software was watermarked with the specific owner, so that owner could be sued when illegal copies showed up on the 'Net. However, such lawsuits would be fatal to Matrix (or, at least this game) if they became required to control the code.

_____________________________

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 #: 48
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 7:03:40 PM   
eske

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Without Matrix there would be no source code. The origin of life for this project was Matrix Games! That's why we need Matrix Games.

Linux needed Torvalis(sp?) EiANW needed Matrix Games.



It is Linus Torvalds. From Finland.

Wikipedia

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 49
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 7:28:45 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1720
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I suppose that's why RedHat is in business? After all, Linux is open source, so there should be no need for RedHat, right?

The open source model will not work for games (as a business model).

Some form of MODIFIED open-source might: Matrix retains control of the code (ALL of the code), but customers can submit fixes. But, I doubt it: There are too many idiots in the gaming community for even that to work. (Idiot, in this context, means people who think they know what they are doing, but do not.)

Furthermore, game players are well known as the computer industry's bane: There are more pirated copies of games in existence than any other kind of software. Trusting the typical gamer with source code would be completely foolish on Matrix' part. The source code would get posted, and then bootleg copies of the game would show up. Within hours, I suspect.

The only way it would work is if all of the software was watermarked with the specific owner, so that owner could be sued when illegal copies showed up on the 'Net. However, such lawsuits would be fatal to Matrix (or, at least this game) if they became required to control the code.


You answered your own question. You sarcastically pointed out that RedHat linux is OpenSource and is still in business and then went on to point out that OpenSource won't work for games (which was the EXACT point I was making).

Thanks. :)

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 50
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/5/2008 7:35:41 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5627
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Marshall,

I don't get your point. I think that if you released the source code at it's current state, there would be no more need to MatrixGames.



Wooops! OK then nevermind... :-)




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 51
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/6/2008 12:10:28 PM   
gazfun


Posts: 850
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Brisbane, Australia
Status: offline
Editor would be good to make one off scenarios, I recken the most interesting would be around 1792

_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 52
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/6/2008 1:04:39 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5627
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
That would certainly be a good use of an editor.


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 53
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/6/2008 2:25:39 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 653
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: Watertown, NY
Status: offline
On with the revolution!

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 54
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/7/2008 7:19:02 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
You answered your own question. You sarcastically pointed out that RedHat linux is OpenSource and is still in business and then went on to point out that OpenSource won't work for games (which was the EXACT point I was making).

Thanks. :)

Sorry. I misconstrued your point.

_____________________________

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 #: 55
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/7/2008 10:06:48 PM   
KenClark

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius


These would certainly be easier. I cannot see why diplomacy couldn't be this way. As for the eco phase, I must ask for opinions from a typical Russian and Turkish player as to if for example:
Should Russia see the unit LEVY of Turkey in December which would happen before Russia's eco phase and what eco decisions might this affect?







I can't possibly imagine a different economic buy by Russia due to Turkey's inevitable levy step bringing all its Feudals to full, which it would do EVERY YEAR unless they were retarded.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 56
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/8/2008 1:52:06 AM   
Mardonius


Posts: 653
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: Watertown, NY
Status: offline
Often the Feudals raised in the levy are invisible to others anyway as they are off board. That has been the case in my games... It is possible that they could be raised on the board though... maybe there could be an option to not run contemporaneous economic phases in December?

(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 57
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/8/2008 2:15:39 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5627
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius

These would certainly be easier. I cannot see why diplomacy couldn't be this way. As for the eco phase, I must ask for opinions from a typical Russian and Turkish player as to if for example:
Should Russia see the unit LEVY of Turkey in December which would happen before Russia's eco phase and what eco decisions might this affect?

I can't possibly imagine a different economic buy by Russia due to Turkey's inevitable levy step bringing all its Feudals to full, which it would do EVERY YEAR unless they were retarded.


Careful here because some feudals may be taking North Africa and raising them from Africa could hurt her position in Africa (Perhaps a reason for not raising all of the time) but she could change her strategy and pull them all out of Africa and raise them to their home provinces in a Dec eco phase and IMO as a Russian player this could change my build strategy to reinforce my border with Turkey. There could be a potential 30-40 factor swing in the area and I for one would like to see that before I purchase forces.

Again IMO.





_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 58
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/8/2008 3:03:53 PM   
KenClark

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius

These would certainly be easier. I cannot see why diplomacy couldn't be this way. As for the eco phase, I must ask for opinions from a typical Russian and Turkish player as to if for example:
Should Russia see the unit LEVY of Turkey in December which would happen before Russia's eco phase and what eco decisions might this affect?

I can't possibly imagine a different economic buy by Russia due to Turkey's inevitable levy step bringing all its Feudals to full, which it would do EVERY YEAR unless they were retarded.


Careful here because some feudals may be taking North Africa and raising them from Africa could hurt her position in Africa (Perhaps a reason for not raising all of the time) but she could change her strategy and pull them all out of Africa and raise them to their home provinces in a Dec eco phase and IMO as a Russian player this could change my build strategy to reinforce my border with Turkey. There could be a potential 30-40 factor swing in the area and I for one would like to see that before I purchase forces.

Again IMO.



Why would your builds change? Perhaps you build a few more corps counters? More militia? You have to realistically build for 3 months ahead of time - as the Russian player you are not likely to change builds based on the levy step. You almost for sure don't care what Turkey does in January because it takes Turkey so long to mobilize for an invasion of Russia. In which case, fo course, you let them drive halfway to Moscow before doing anything since Turkey can't really hurt you on its own except some minor production damage. This is due to the timing it takes to move the feudals from their home provinces to somewhere where they can mass up.

If you teleport the feudals in December, they don't show up anywhere near the Russian border (except maybe the Bulgarian corps). If Turkey wants to supply them in the winter, it still takes at least two turns to get them near the Russian border (more if you are trying to get the Greeks there, less for some of the cav perhaps).

I don't see how knowing that Turkey brought some corps home and could invade you in 2 turns would change your builds.

Even if there were some reason to change your builds I think the impact that this would have on the game would be extremely minimal, and the benefit in less waiting for PBEM a vast improvement.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 59
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/8/2008 3:08:30 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1720
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark


Why would your builds change? Perhaps you build a few more corps counters? More militia? You have to realistically build for 3 months ahead of time - as the Russian player you are not likely to change builds based on the levy step. You almost for sure don't care what Turkey does in January because it takes Turkey so long to mobilize for an invasion of Russia. In which case, fo course, you let them drive halfway to Moscow before doing anything since Turkey can't really hurt you on its own except some minor production damage. This is due to the timing it takes to move the feudals from their home provinces to somewhere where they can mass up.

If you teleport the feudals in December, they don't show up anywhere near the Russian border (except maybe the Bulgarian corps). If Turkey wants to supply them in the winter, it still takes at least two turns to get them near the Russian border (more if you are trying to get the Greeks there, less for some of the cav perhaps).

I don't see how knowing that Turkey brought some corps home and could invade you in 2 turns would change your builds.

Even if there were some reason to change your builds I think the impact that this would have on the game would be extremely minimal, and the benefit in less waiting for PBEM a vast improvement.


I tend to agree. Typically, Russia doesn't really have to confront Turkey unless she wants to. Turkey doesn't usually have the money nor the troops to deeply (go to Moscow) invade Russia, cossacks and winter make sure of that.

(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: What about 1.04 Page: <<   < prev  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

0.117