Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for?

 
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] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/16/2009 11:50:19 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Well, the Marshall is away this week, so I can’t think of a better time to think up things to add to his to do list for his return.

I want to know if you guys think we should ask for sim reinforcement. We bombarded the Marshall to pieces when this was brought up about a year ago, but I think we were wrong to do so. It takes about 2 days to a week for a PBEM to get through reinforcement. Is it worth the wait, when it could be done in less than a day as sim phase?

The proposal would be to replace the current reinforcement with 2 sim phases, one to add reinforcements, and one where France and GB declare when they will move (will be skippable).

Before we heard quotes like I would rather die than have simultaneous reinforcement, but after a year of playing without it, I think we should ask the question again.

Thoughts, gentlemen?

Yes, I Iike it, or No I don’t, and reasons why.


< Message edited by Dancing Bear -- 11/16/2009 11:51:13 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/17/2009 12:21:12 AM   
bOrIuM

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 2/13/2006
Status: offline
I believe we didnt talk about it again because the reason is simple: There is an order in Reinf for the same reason there is one in land and naval phase... it is strategic ! No need to argue more than that. I'll never play a game with simultaneous reinf as it will kill a lot of strategy options. Where you will add troops, garisons and leaders will depends where others will do it. It is simple and complete no need to argue more I believe.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 2
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/17/2009 2:35:04 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2689
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
No need for an argument at all if the suggested sim reinforcement is an OPTION, for some players to consider for faster pbem play at some sacrifice of strategy options. 

If real fog of war options are ever implemented in this computer game where MPs do not have unrealistic omnipotent powers, then sim reinforcement should be fine.  That would compel players to consider new and different strategy options.  Again, no argument is necessary if this is an OPTION and players could decide for themselves whether to use it or not.


(in reply to bOrIuM)
Post #: 3
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/19/2009 2:37:54 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I am not even looking to do this for now guys!

1. This very option limits France's dominance.
2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

IF this were to be an option it would fall way after a Classic Scenario and TCP/IP!




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 4
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/19/2009 7:31:25 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
Regarding France's dominance, I would support a compromise where the five non-dominant powers were simultaneous, followed by GB and France (simultaneous with each other or not, I wouldn't care).

_____________________________

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 #: 5
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/19/2009 10:49:10 PM   
StCyr

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).



Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 6
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/20/2009 2:58:21 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
That seems fair. There does not seem to be too much interest in this option. There was a lot more interest in delaying the timing of cavalry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I am not even looking to do this for now guys!

1. This very option limits France's dominance.
2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

IF this were to be an option it would fall way after a Classic Scenario and TCP/IP!





(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 7
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/20/2009 2:59:44 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
The Marshall did say he was learning. However, going to true EIA is alos not the right way to go, as with a computer game, we can improve it by taking out a lot of manual calculations and other inefficiencies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).



Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?


(in reply to StCyr)
Post #: 8
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/20/2009 3:10:35 AM   
NeverMan

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

The Marshall did say he was learning. However, going to true EIA is alos not the right way to go, as with a computer game, we can improve it by taking out a lot of manual calculations and other inefficiencies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).



Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?




"manual calculations" is hardly debatable; however, "other inefficiencies" is HIGHLY debatable. I have seen A LOT of your suggestions regarding this game and from most of them (while good and with good intentions) tend to want to make this NOT the PC Empires in Arms and tend to want this game to be something else entirely.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 9
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/20/2009 12:24:41 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2689
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

I have seen A LOT of your suggestions regarding this game and from most of them (while good and with good intentions) tend to want to make this NOT the PC Empires in Arms and tend to want this game to be something else entirely.


As opposed to you and others wanting to make this game just another souped up version of Vassal or Cyberboard pbem software without any PC game features such as computer opponents and realistic fog of war?? Sure. Go play Vassal or Cyberboard if that's all you want. PC games should provide more.

If Marshall ever considers a real fog of war option where players really don't know where their opponents' corps and fleets are, much less where reinforcements are placed, then placement order becomes irrelevant and sim reinforcement would work fine. Obviously not a priority right now, but down the road this should be reconsidered.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 10
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/20/2009 1:39:44 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

I have seen A LOT of your suggestions regarding this game and from most of them (while good and with good intentions) tend to want to make this NOT the PC Empires in Arms and tend to want this game to be something else entirely.


As opposed to you and others wanting to make this game just another souped up version of Vassal or Cyberboard pbem software without any PC game features such as computer opponents and realistic fog of war?? Sure. Go play Vassal or Cyberboard if that's all you want. PC games should provide more.

If Marshall ever considers a real fog of war option where players really don't know where their opponents' corps and fleets are, much less where reinforcements are placed, then placement order becomes irrelevant and sim reinforcement would work fine. Obviously not a priority right now, but down the road this should be reconsidered.


Actually, I'm all for an AI (though I don't think it will ever be any good), as I've stated before. Do I think the AI should take priority over PBEM? No, as I've stated before.

Fog of war was not included in Empires in Arms. That said, I don't have a problem with other options being added that were not original as long as they ENHANCE the game. Most of the EiH rules don't enhance the game, IMO. Also, I don't think true FOW would enhance the game that much. NOW, if it were FOW such as a lot of boardgames (where the face of the stack is downward) then I would be all for that.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 11
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/20/2009 2:04:08 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).



Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?


I'm aloud to learn from my mistakes, huh?


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to StCyr)
Post #: 12
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/21/2009 12:57:43 AM   
sw30

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline
I just want to post in support of EiH 5.0, which is a much better game than EiA...

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 13
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/21/2009 3:34:51 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Oh-oh Neverman, what have you started now?

In response to your post, yes, I like to post a lot, just like you. It gives me something to do while I am waiting for my turn.

By inefficiencies I refer to the strict adherence to the EIA phase system, which creates enormous number of file exchanges and time spent waiting. The phase system was routinely bent in the board games we played to accommodate late or absent players, which generally made the game more enjoyable. There is still more room for improvement on this front, and I'm sure you will let me know when we stray too far.

Other ideas I can mostly take or leave, although I would like to see trivial battles.


(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 14
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/21/2009 2:48:34 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sw30

I just want to post in support of EiH 5.0, which is a much better game than EiA...


Have not played 5.0
Briefly, what makes it better?


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 15
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/23/2009 6:14:46 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
...Fog of war was not included in Empires in Arms. ...

Actually, it was, but limited: You didn't know what was in an enemy's corps until you fought 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 NeverMan)
Post #: 16
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/23/2009 9:07:34 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
...Fog of war was not included in Empires in Arms. ...

Actually, it was, but limited: You didn't know what was in an enemy's corps until you fought it.


Correct, not the FoW you guys are talking about though.... it's all in the context.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 17
RE: Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? - 11/24/2009 5:10:52 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Correct, not the FoW you guys are talking about though.... it's all in the context.

Hence, the reason I started the other thread. :)

_____________________________

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 #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for? 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

0.133