Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip and rein phases)

 
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 >> PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip and rein phases) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip and ... - 7/3/2008 3:32:11 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Hi all
Below are two other ideas for streamlining the PBEM game. For this thread, I am assuming that simultaneous diplomacy and reinforcement turns are integrated into the game (simultaneous reinforcement and diplomacy phases have been discussed elsewhere and, although improvements are still possible, are not the subject of this thread). The objective of this thread is to reduce the number of 24 hour turn arounds significantly by dealing with peace.

Despite the name of the name, most players spend most of their turns at peace, so much so, the game could be called Empires at Parade Rest. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a player is at war only 25% of the time (not counting France). The game has 120 months, so this leaves 90 turns for a player to pick his nose. A fantastic way to cut years of playing time off the game would be to let players opt out of their land and naval phases. How could we do this?

Naval phase: Easy enough, allow players to “skip” their naval phases (even if at war) by selecting a button during the reinforcement phase. By skipping, their naval units simply do not move. So for instance, say Prussia, Austria, Spain, Russia, and France either have no fleets, are ice-locked, are blockaded, or have nothing to do. These players opt to “skip” their naval phase. Let’s assume GB selects to go last in the naval phase. At the end of the reinforcement phase (which is now simultaneous with all files sent to the French player), the game determines who is next, which is in this case Turkey. Turkey does her move, then sends the files to all players, as usual, with game announcing it is GB’s naval phase. GB does its move and then it is the land phase. So instead of 7 naval moves, each assumed to take 24 hours, we have 2. Assuming that this happens often enough (say 50% of the time), we have eliminated 60 months worth of naval moves by 5 players or 300 days from the game. Not bad.

Land phase: A little harder, as this phase can not be skipped. However, a player could opt to do no movement (i.e. autoforage all units) during the reinforcement phase, either auto foraging or paying for supply. Let’s call this standing down. Troops from all the stood down powers would autoforage simultaneously during the reinforcement phase (effectively completing their no movement first). Naval movement of stood down troops would not be allowed.

There would have to be a couple of compromises. First, the game would assume that units of other players do not move into areas controlled by the player who has stood down his units, or if they do they do not affect forage rolls unless they started in an area with stood down corps, i.e. a foreign corps moving through the area with a stood down corps would not affect the stood down corps forage roll, but a foreign corps starting in the same area as a stood down corps would. Second, a stood down player could not build depots outside his own country when stood down, to prevent the simultaneous construction of depots in the same area (the work around here is for corps in foreign nations to be “lent” or simply to not to opt to stand down your army).
Again, let’s say it is January 1806, and assume Prussia and Austria are under enforced peace with France. Russia, Turkey and Spain have conquered all the minors they are going to get and GB has its two corps at a tea party in London safe behind the Channel Fleet. None of these powers has any reason to move their army. France opts to go last but still keep its movement. At the end of the naval phase, the game will announce it is French land phase, France does its move, then we go into the diplomacy phase. Instead of 7 separate players each taking 24 hours to do nothing, we have one turn. So again, assuming this happens 50% of the time, we have eliminated 60 months of moves by 7 players, or another 360 days from the game.

This basically creates what happens several times in all the board games when the game leaps ahead several months at a time. It also lets less active major powers (i.e. Spain) be less involved in the game when they are not needed, saving them from complete boredom.

What do you all think? The math might not be right, but I think it is a good idea. Combine with simultaneous reinforcement and diplomacy phases, a peaceful month could be reduced to two game days. You could do a year in a less than a month.
Post #: 1
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 3:43:09 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
1. Not to be a smartass because I made the same mistake (similar) in another thread, but there's 132 months (12*11).

2. I totally agree about the naval phase being skipped, in my games thus prussia and austria get their naval phase skipped by the host.

3. Although I understand that not having a land phase for some countries could speed things up, I just don't think it will. Why? Because most players will not do this most of the time, so I'm not sure it's worth the coding headache for Marshall. If it's easy, then by all means, but I doubt it will be. At some point some things have to get balanced out (HotSeat could have been one of these things).

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 2
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 5:40:13 AM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
Personally I think these are excellent suggestions.

Edit: Additionally I think ALL sieges should be automated and not require an exchange of battle files. The choices to be made are usually quite obvious.

< Message edited by Soapy Frog -- 7/3/2008 5:50:19 AM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 3
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 6:34:52 AM   
jnier


Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline
I think sieges could be streamlined too, so that battlefiles do not neccessarily have to be exchanged. If i've garrisoned a city with a single factor, I'm not going to sortie. So maybe there's some button that can be added for garrisons ("auto-resolve seige assault" maybe), and if you click on it, you indicate that you do not want to sortie, in the event of an assault. And you let the computer decide which troops to take as seige casualties. Then the siege could be conducted without an exchange of files, correct?

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 4
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 12:34:41 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

I think sieges could be streamlined too, so that battlefiles do not neccessarily have to be exchanged. If i've garrisoned a city with a single factor, I'm not going to sortie. So maybe there's some button that can be added for garrisons ("auto-resolve seige assault" maybe), and if you click on it, you indicate that you do not want to sortie, in the event of an assault. And you let the computer decide which troops to take as seige casualties. Then the siege could be conducted without an exchange of files, correct?


As far as i know only siege battles involving corps inside acting as garrison, currently needed file exchange(which beside for info on the attacker is unneeded).
Garrisons dont.

You do know when you can set orders for your "garrisons", both in reinforcement phase but also in your land move phase ?
As described on page 79 of the manual.

Regards
Bresh



(in reply to jnier)
Post #: 5
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 5:00:39 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

I think sieges could be streamlined too, so that battlefiles do not neccessarily have to be exchanged. If i've garrisoned a city with a single factor, I'm not going to sortie. So maybe there's some button that can be added for garrisons ("auto-resolve seige assault" maybe), and if you click on it, you indicate that you do not want to sortie, in the event of an assault. And you let the computer decide which troops to take as seige casualties. Then the siege could be conducted without an exchange of files, correct?


As far as i know only siege battles involving corps inside acting as garrison, currently needed file exchange(which beside for info on the attacker is unneeded).
Garrisons dont.

You do know when you can set orders for your "garrisons", both in reinforcement phase but also in your land move phase ?
As described on page 79 of the manual.

Regards
Bresh






This should be correct.
Also, battles against a single minor corps should be streamlined (AI takes control of the defendinf minor).




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 6
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 5:27:30 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh


quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

I think sieges could be streamlined too, so that battlefiles do not neccessarily have to be exchanged. If i've garrisoned a city with a single factor, I'm not going to sortie. So maybe there's some button that can be added for garrisons ("auto-resolve seige assault" maybe), and if you click on it, you indicate that you do not want to sortie, in the event of an assault. And you let the computer decide which troops to take as seige casualties. Then the siege could be conducted without an exchange of files, correct?


As far as i know only siege battles involving corps inside acting as garrison, currently needed file exchange(which beside for info on the attacker is unneeded).
Garrisons dont.

You do know when you can set orders for your "garrisons", both in reinforcement phase but also in your land move phase ?
As described on page 79 of the manual.

Regards
Bresh






This should be correct.
Also, battles against a single minor corps should be streamlined (AI takes control of the defendinf minor).





I noticed this and I can say that I don't agree with it they way it is currently implemented. Open Field Combat should be done by the player UNLESS the 5:1 Trivial Combat rule is implemented.

Personally, I consider 1PP to be a lot and it's not something I want to give the AI (especially not in it's current condition) control over. Why was it implemented this way????

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 7
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 6:28:05 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Very simply to streamline the PBEM play. Actually, I think the AI does pretty well once it is in combat. Do you see a bahavior issue with that?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 8
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 6:46:11 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
I do not have a big problem with this as you can pre-select the minor corps' chit.

For sieges, even sieges with corps defending should not require an exchange of battle files. Casualty assignment is quite simple in almost all cases.

For example right now if I am Portugal figthing Spain: If my corps fights in the field, there is no battle file exchange. If my corps is beseiged and fights in the city then there IS a battle file exchange. Why? This slows the game down unnecessarily.

Marshall, what do you think of Dancing Bear's suggestion of giving an "opt out" of naval and land movement choice to major powers at peace? This could be a very very significant streamlining element.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 9
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 6:58:53 PM   
KenClark

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Very simply to streamline the PBEM play. Actually, I think the AI does pretty well once it is in combat. Do you see a bahavior issue with that?


I would like the ability to reinforce those types of battles. If I leave Davout out with the full first French corps and it gets jumped, I would like to be able to reinforce in with Napoleon, for example.

Similarly, I would like to be able to ATTACK a single corps and be able to reinforce into it. This is a very powerful money-saver in the mountains for example. You attack into the mountains with 1 corps, and you then reinforce in 5+ more. This saves you a lot of $$, especially in the winter.

Also, if it's for PP I would like to be able to pick the chits depending on how many corps attack me, for example.

Ken

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 10
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 7:39:48 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Very simply to streamline the PBEM play. Actually, I think the AI does pretty well once it is in combat. Do you see a bahavior issue with that?


I would like the ability to reinforce those types of battles. If I leave Davout out with the full first French corps and it gets jumped, I would like to be able to reinforce in with Napoleon, for example.

Similarly, I would like to be able to ATTACK a single corps and be able to reinforce into it. This is a very powerful money-saver in the mountains for example. You attack into the mountains with 1 corps, and you then reinforce in 5+ more. This saves you a lot of $$, especially in the winter.

Also, if it's for PP I would like to be able to pick the chits depending on how many corps attack me, for example.

Ken


As far as i remember you are in control and should be able to reinforce when you attack with 1 corps since its your turn. Or have i percieved this wrongly ?

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 11
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/3/2008 11:43:26 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Besides that, a thing I miss is being able to reinforce a battle after it is over. The computer version seems to forget that the round in which a side breaks is still a round, and reinforcing in should still be an option. I think I'll report this as a "rules deviation".

_____________________________

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 bresh)
Post #: 12
RE: PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip ... - 7/4/2008 2:55:13 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Ok, since this thread has become about streamlining combat, lets start a new thread for streamlining PBEM combat. What were folks thoughts on skipping naval phases and semi-simultaneous land phases during times of peace? Marshall, are these things hard to code?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> PBEM stream-ling ideas (more than simultaneous dip and rein phases) 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

0.539