Yearworld's scenarios (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message


Dancing Bear -> Yearworld's scenarios (4/14/2010 3:20:41 AM)

First, thank you Yearworld for creating both a classic EIA like scenario and a 1792 scenario. I would like to know if you would have any problems if the Marshall took your scenario's and incorprated them in the next version of the game?

Marshall, outside of the map, there appears to be only one thing Yearworld can't do, and that is create a traditional EIA naval game, because he has to use heavies. Can you create a class of ships that is not a heavy, light or transport (i.e. not get +1 when it out numbers an opponent by 1.5 times?).

If Yearworld agrees, then incorporating these scenarios into the game would bring us a lot closer to the original EIA, and it can't be that hard to do.

DB.




Marshall Ellis -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/14/2010 1:20:27 PM)

Well actually the plan would be to ONLY use heavies. I don't think the bonus comes into play without lights.




Yearworld -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/14/2010 2:42:49 PM)

I would be honored for my two scenarios to be included in the official game. Since I did them all the Editor they could probably be inlcuded in an update to the game in the same way the 1812 Scenario was included in an earlier update. Of course this is up to Matrix but I have no problems with it.

There are a few problems I know of in each Scenario(especially 1792).

1805: The Heavy ships cost and time are also too much for a Classic EIA game. Not a huge deal though.

1792: Neutral Poland control is a problem(except in AI where it is fine). More problematic for AI only games is that there is no way to keep leaders off the map(for example Nap is only supposed to come in 1796 but he can be placed immediately). Also for AI games the French Levee is a problem. These last two are no problem in PBEM games with 7 opponents where players can manually control them. Plus 1792 hasn't been tested much. Hopefully I can get a game started so we can see how it plays.

Anyway, I know none of these changes are of high priority so I don't expect them to be changed anytime soon just letting you know there are some problems especially in my 1792 Game but I am fine with it being incoporated into the game if Matrix wants.




Dancing Bear -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/15/2010 2:14:08 AM)

Hi Yearworld, that's great you let us use you scenarios.




Dancing Bear -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/15/2010 2:18:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well actually the plan would be to ONLY use heavies. I don't think the bonus comes into play without lights.




Hi Marshall
Rule 9.2.2 states that a side gets +1 if it has 1.5 times the heavies of an opponent. There is also a -1 penalty for a side playing just lights. So, in a game with just heavies, there is no -1 penalty for lights, but there is still a +1 for 1.5 times as many heavies. We need a new class of ships, maybe called "traditional EIA ship factors" without the +1 for 1.5 times (and with the same construction costs as the original EIA) to properly replicate the original EIA.




easterner -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/15/2010 12:08:55 PM)

What 1792 scenario? I only saw Classic.




Marshall Ellis -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/15/2010 1:16:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well actually the plan would be to ONLY use heavies. I don't think the bonus comes into play without lights.




Hi Marshall
Rule 9.2.2 states that a side gets +1 if it has 1.5 times the heavies of an opponent. There is also a -1 penalty for a side playing just lights. So, in a game with just heavies, there is no -1 penalty for lights, but there is still a +1 for 1.5 times as many heavies. We need a new class of ships, maybe called "traditional EIA ship factors" without the +1 for 1.5 times (and with the same construction costs as the original EIA) to properly replicate the original EIA.


What about just using heavies? If the bonus applies to all then balanace is still OK, right?





Yearworld -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/15/2010 3:34:57 PM)


Eastener-my mistake the 1792 Campaign is now also posted in the Scenarios forum.

Marshall-I think what DB is saying is that in the "Classic" EIA game there was no +1 for 1.5 more heavy ships like there is in the Empires in Harms version.

Yearworld




easterner -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/15/2010 7:09:43 PM)

I have a 1792 Campaign. I'll give it a spin after Red Sox game ends.

Thanks!!!!!




StCyr -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/15/2010 11:33:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Well actually the plan would be to ONLY use heavies. I don't think the bonus comes into play without lights.




Hi Marshall
Rule 9.2.2 states that a side gets +1 if it has 1.5 times the heavies of an opponent. There is also a -1 penalty for a side playing just lights. So, in a game with just heavies, there is no -1 penalty for lights, but there is still a +1 for 1.5 times as many heavies. We need a new class of ships, maybe called "traditional EIA ship factors" without the +1 for 1.5 times (and with the same construction costs as the original EIA) to properly replicate the original EIA.


What about just using heavies? If the bonus applies to all then balanace is still OK, right?





LOL, Marshal, you will never get it, itīs hilarious [:)] [:)] [:)]

I suggest another bonus - the side with more british ships get a +2. Of course this applies to all possible sides so it is balanced too.

or to make it simple just for you Marshal- your "balanced" bonus will favour any side with 1.5 ratio. Now even you should be able to guess what every one except you understands... come on, try it [:D]




NeverMan -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/16/2010 12:04:31 AM)

StCyr,

That's simply ridiculously uncalled for and highly offensive.




Dancing Bear -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/16/2010 11:10:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about just using heavies? If the bonus applies to all then balanace is still OK, right?



Yes, with the recent Mantis fix for the GB +1, that is probably balanced. It would be nice to have the original ship factor back, to emulate the original game as much as possible, but this works for now.




pzgndr -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/16/2010 12:27:49 PM)

quote:

It would be nice to have the original ship factor back, to emulate the original game as much as possible, but this works for now.


Whenever Marshall gets around to resolving Mantis issue #510 for proportional naval losses and revised PPs, that should largely fix the naval issues for either classic EiA or EiANW scenarios.

quote:

That's simply ridiculously uncalled for and highly offensive.


Well now there's the pot calling the kettle black! Too funny. PolitenessMan and his steel hankie, ever vigilant...





Dancing Bear -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/16/2010 1:57:40 PM)

Proportional naval losses would help with what ever scenario is used.




Marshall Ellis -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/16/2010 2:57:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about just using heavies? If the bonus applies to all then balanace is still OK, right?



Yes, with the recent Mantis fix for the GB +1, that is probably balanced. It would be nice to have the original ship factor back, to emulate the original game as much as possible, but this works for now.


IF I ever get the time (:-0) then we would do the original ship numbers in the classic scenario.




StCyr -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/16/2010 4:28:55 PM)

is "probably balanced" the servile version of unbalanced ?

If you want to be polite, ok. But recall how many suggestions Marshal ignored in the past, and I doubt he gets "probably balanced".

Of course Dancing Bear was right when he asked for a fix "without the +1 for 1.5 times". I am sorry if he feels to step back form this just because of my comment. But for me it is just amusing to see such an obviously proof of Marshals ignorance. Is "ignorace" offensive if it is the truth ? So I may be offensive.
But you canīt deny that somone who knows classic EIA would never say a general bonus of 1+ to all 1.5 times fleet might be "balanced". Thats, my dear NeverMan, is the only ridiculous statement here.
And even if you only know Marshals work you should be able to estimate that this general bonus will never be balanced.
Now go on and praise him for his "probably great work"...





pzgndr -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/18/2010 6:15:29 PM)

Based on the feedback here and some collaboration with Yearworld, I've touched up an 1805 custom campaign I've been working on for several months and posted it to the Mods section above. Basically it's an updated EiANW grand campaign with classic EiA and EiH v4.0 features, a little different than what Yearworld developed. There are still some limitations with the editor in the v1.08 beta , so I still haven't been able to do a few things I'd like to do.




NeverMan -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/18/2010 7:01:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr

is "probably balanced" the servile version of unbalanced ?

If you want to be polite, ok. But recall how many suggestions Marshal ignored in the past, and I doubt he gets "probably balanced".

Of course Dancing Bear was right when he asked for a fix "without the +1 for 1.5 times". I am sorry if he feels to step back form this just because of my comment. But for me it is just amusing to see such an obviously proof of Marshals ignorance. Is "ignorace" offensive if it is the truth ? So I may be offensive.
But you canīt deny that somone who knows classic EIA would never say a general bonus of 1+ to all 1.5 times fleet might be "balanced". Thats, my dear NeverMan, is the only ridiculous statement here.
And even if you only know Marshals work you should be able to estimate that this general bonus will never be balanced.
Now go on and praise him for his "probably great work"...




Yes, I agree that Marshall or Matrix does not have a clear view of things, that much is obvious; however, I'm just saying that you dont' have to be so aggressive in your judgement. :)




Yearworld -> RE: Yearworld's scenarios (4/18/2010 7:35:14 PM)

Everyone who has played and enjoyed my Campaigns please go check out Pzgndr's Custom Campaign in the Mods forum. IMO he has learned the Editor best and has taken it as far as the limitations of the editor will let him. He has new corps, new OOB(orders of Batte), a better map, new AI setps and more to make his Campaign fun.

I would also like to thank Pzgndr for helping me learn to do the AI setups for my 1792 game(though mine are not very good) as he was the one who taught me not only that I could do this but how to do it.

Please also keep posting things you want changed in my scenarios here or in their thread(s) so that I know what works and what doesn't. Thanks

Yearworld




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.709961E-02