The Art of War

Share your glorious victories and ignominious defeats with the rest of the EIA community here.

Moderator: MOD_EIA

User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

This thread is for discussions in the tutorial-type game "The Art of War". The only "house rule" thus far implemented is that it's an open game. By that, I mean that we will all be open about our strategies, even with our enemies. The purpose of this game is NOT to win (although players are expected to play as if it were, more or less), but rather to learn.

Other house-rule possibilities that we need to discuss (feel free to add your own, but continue the numbering from where the last person left off):

1) Which official "options" will we play with?

2) Will we determine the winners per the original EIA rules (i.e. that one person crosses the line, but then everybody adds manpower to see if they also won.

3) Time limit for turns? This will have to be flexible, since we have at least two people who do not live in North America. I would suggest a "please try to check every day, preferably twice each day" mentality rather than a hard "rule".

4) People who both besiege a port and blockade the same port do NOT get to use their fleets to pick up the corps present the very next turn (if they win the siege combat). They must pretend that the fleets are still in the blockade box. (This would be a rule that only needs to last until the fix comes out.)

5) Players will do their best (when feasible) to correct for gains or losses caused by game bugs (only).

6) Players will all play the latest beta-released (or, full released, but this will be hard on me) patch level.

7) Players should post their 2 movement phases prior to working on their 2 combat phases. This takes away some incentive to cheat. Note that if this is in place, the date of the combat phase should be AFTER the posting time of the movement phase file.

...
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: The Art of War

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

3) Time limit for turns? This will have to be flexible, since we have at least two people who do not live in North America. I would suggest a "please try to check every day, preferably twice each day" mentality rather than a hard "rule".

I'm one of the two outside North America. I've had no problem in other games keeping up with a 24 hour turn around. I spend large amounts of time during the day online so checking for turns isn't an issue.
ORIGINAL: Jimmer

6) Players will all play the latest beta-released (or, full released, but this will be hard on me) patch level.

...

All my other games play with a firm 'No Betas' policy so I'd have a problem if we were inisisting on playing it with the latest beta.
Regards
David
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: The Art of War

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

1) Which official "options" will we play with?

My suggestions -

Winter Movement - No. There are already penalties for supply and foraging which are tough enough.
Guard Commitment - Yes
Economic Manipulation - Yes
GB & France Start at War - No preference, although if we're doing this as a tutorial we probably ought to say yes.
Leader Casualties - No. I like the rule but an unlucky loss of a key leader can cripple some nations.
Privateers - No. Don't really add anything to the game.
Lille Crossing Arrow - Yes 'cos I'd like to try it.

Other things we may want to consider -

Restrictions on Dardanelles movement.
Restrictions on peace between GB and France.

I'm not too worried about which way we decide on all these, just giving my POV.
Regards
David
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: The Art of War

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

4) People who both besiege a port and blockade the same port do NOT get to use their fleets to pick up the corps present the very next turn (if they win the siege combat). They must pretend that the fleets are still in the blockade box. (This would be a rule that only needs to last until the fix comes out.)

Has this actually been reported ? I can't find it on the Mantis bug tracker.
Regards
David
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

4) People who both besiege a port and blockade the same port do NOT get to use their fleets to pick up the corps present the very next turn (if they win the siege combat). They must pretend that the fleets are still in the blockade box. (This would be a rule that only needs to last until the fix comes out.)

Has this actually been reported ? I can't find it on the Mantis bug tracker.
I'm not actually sure. I know we reported it a long time ago, but that was before the current system was in place. I'll go report it, just to make sure.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

Since we either have 6 or 7 players, I want to begin probing the optional rules. Here's the list, along with my suggestion. However, we will vote on these, not just decree them from the host (except those marked with an asterisk):
 
Game options:
 
Winter land movement (disabled)
Guard commitment (enabled)
Allow PBEM Host GA functions* (enabled)
Allow option changes during the game (enabled)
Third party combat system (disabled)
PBEM-hotseat passwords (disabled)
Economic manipulation (enabled)
GB and France start at war (enabled, +)
Leader casualties (no preference)
Privateers (disabled)
PBEM quick combat (disabled)
Use lille sea crossing (enabled)
Fog of war (disabled)
 
User preferences (I'm only including these because it appears that when you load a game, you get these pasted over the top of what you already had):
 
Show possible moves (no preference)
Political shading (enabled)
map scroll delay (5)
see ai moves (disabled)
always show ranges (no preference)
music (disabled)
sound effects (disabled)

Two notes on this: First, I'm quite willing to play with leader casualties, but most people who are asked don't want leaders to DIE, but they might allow for wounding for X months. I believe Marshall changed the game a while back to allow leaders to never be killed, but still be wounded. If so, then more people might want this one. I'll check when Marshall gets back.
 
Second, GB and France really should be at war, or the game goes haywire really quickly. In fact, they should be required to uncheck the "offer conditional" flag, plus use the other pieces of these old rules as well:
 
11.9.2 GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE AT WAR: No major powers necessarily start at war in the campaign games (14.4 and 14.7) that start in 1805 to give players the maximum flexibility in creating their own diplomatic climate. Actually, France and Great Britain were already at war and the duel between them was to continue to the bitter end. These optional rules recreate this competition:
 
11.9.2.1 START AT WAR: France and Great Britain must start at war in the campaign games starting in 1805. France and Great Britain may _never_ make an informal pace and, unless one or both have ceased to be dominant powers, may never be allies.
 
11.9.2.2 MANDATORY PEACE CONDITIONS: If France sues Great Britain for peace, Great Britain must demand an unconditional peace that includes peace condition C.6 to remove the NAPOLEON leader (unless already killed). Peace cannot be made if these conditions cannot be met (ie., if another major power with which France is making peace at the same time does not agree to the removal of NAPOLEON). If Great Britain sues France for peace, France must demand an unconditional peace that includes peace condition C.1.c (which could be chosen by any major power with which Great Britain is making peace at the same time) to remove two fleets and peace condition C.5, which must permit French major power forces access. They may never make an informal peace and may never be allies. These requirements are all dropped in a game using option 11.8 if either France or Great Britain ceases to be a dominant power and/or if one of the other major powers becomes a dominant power
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

Now for some house rules that I would like to see in place:
 
1)  Nobody can take advantage of a game glitch (bug or rules violation) once it becomes known. This would include such already known things as
 
- Break in to blockaded port, and then leave on the next turn, because the game automatically moves the fleets into port.
- Create a superstate (Poland, OE, etc.) while there is a major power at war with one of the component pieces. In other words, someone declares war on, say, Algeria, and Turkey then uses that country as part of the Ottoman Empire. The person at war with Algeria is now at peace with the Ottoman Empire, and can't finish the conquest.
- Etc.
 
2)  When there is a combat to be declared, post your land/naval movement phase before acting on the combat.
 
3)  We have a request from one player to play ONLY the released version (1.3.14, at present). If anybody wants to play with the beta versions (the semi-beta ones, that is, like 1.04.02 should be shortly), speak now, or this fellow will win by summary judgement.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: The Art of War

Post by DCWhitworth »

A few comments -

User preferences.
Not sure about this, I'm pretty sure I've had the same user preferences set on my system and they've not been overwritten through games, but you can change these yourself anyway (and they only affect you) so I don't think they're an issue really.

Leader Casualties
We had a leader killed in a PBEM game played under 1.02k so I'm not sure this has been changed.

Bugs
I fully agree that no one should take advantage of a bug however I think we need to differentiate between bugs and rules deviations. A bug is something that is wrong with the game, e.g. there used to be (fixed at 1.03) a bug that allowed a depot to transfer garrison points to itself thus generating extra troop points, this is clearly wrong. A rules deviation however is something that is different between the board game and the computer game.

I would argue that the issue you mentioned with a blockading fleet is a rules deviation, not a bug. Specifically I think the rule of thumb should be 'would you know there was an issue without looking at the board game ?', this is important because there will be people who play EiANW without ever having played the board game.

Note - I don't object to your house rule regarding this issue, just about whether it is truly a bug or not.
Regards
David
ess1
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:13 am
Location: Newport, Shropshire, U.K.

RE: The Art of War

Post by ess1 »

Show possible moves and Always show Ranges.
Otherwise all ok.
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
Leader Casualties
We had a leader killed in a PBEM game played under 1.02k so I'm not sure this has been changed.
I think it was added in 1.03 somewhere along the line. But, I won't guess at it, because being wrong and having Napoleon killed would really end the game quickly.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
Bugs
I fully agree that no one should take advantage of a bug however I think we need to differentiate between bugs and rules deviations. A bug is something that is wrong with the game, e.g. there used to be (fixed at 1.03) a bug that allowed a depot to transfer garrison points to itself thus generating extra troop points, this is clearly wrong. A rules deviation however is something that is different between the board game and the computer game.

I would argue that the issue you mentioned with a blockading fleet is a rules deviation, not a bug. Specifically I think the rule of thumb should be 'would you know there was an issue without looking at the board game ?', this is important because there will be people who play EiANW without ever having played the board game.

Note - I don't object to your house rule regarding this issue, just about whether it is truly a bug or not.
There are two types of rules deviations: From the EIANW manual, and between EIA and EIANW. I agree that there shouldn't be any stock placed in original EIA rules other than for explanatory value.

However, when something violates the rules of EIANW as they are currently written, that's a problem. The blockading fleet thing is actually a rules deviation fully within EIANW. It's not CLEARLY so, but a very good case (IMO) can be made for it (I opened a case against this last night, in fact).

But, yes, rules deviations against EIANW only.

NOTE to others: This does NOT mean you can't propose a house rule meant to emulate the board game in some way. Just realize that we would have to vote on it and agree before it would be accepted. In fact, the house rule I proposed regarding France and GB being at war (and, requiring certain conditions to end that state) is exactly that: A PROPOSED house rule made to emulate the board game. None of the ones I wrote are automatically in place just because I said so. I'm going to run this as YOUR (the players') game, not mine.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

ORIGINAL: ess1

Show possible moves and Always show Ranges.
Otherwise all ok.
OK by me. If DC is right, though, those can be changed by the user. Only the starting values would be done by the host (if even that).
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: The Art of War

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

There are two types of rules deviations: From the EIANW manual, and between EIA and EIANW. I agree that there shouldn't be any stock placed in original EIA rules other than for explanatory value.

However, when something violates the rules of EIANW as they are currently written, that's a problem. The blockading fleet thing is actually a rules deviation fully within EIANW. It's not CLEARLY so, but a very good case (IMO) can be made for it (I opened a case against this last night, in fact).

In that case I'm going to be pedantic and disagree with you again [;)]

I'd say if the EiANW manual says one thing and the program does another then I'd say that is a bug not a rules deviation. The fault might be with the manual, but I'd still say it's a bug.

To me a rules deviation is only a difference between the board game and computer game.
Regards
David
User avatar
menik
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:51 pm
Location: Patrimonium Petri (Italy)
Contact:

RE: The Art of War

Post by menik »

1) with ess1: Show possible moves and Always show Ranges.
2) ok
3) ok
4) ok
5) ok
6) no beta. We have a new official release. To change during the game, using a beta, would be a risk
7) This is a complication that I would avoid. It brings away a lot of time
Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology:
www.antrocom.net
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

ORIGINAL: htullio
7) This is a complication that I would avoid. It brings away a lot of time
The purpose of this is to prevent the easiest way of cheating (closing the game before after you see a bad result, and then trying again until you get a good one).

The cost for the anti-cheat is nearly zero, since the person has to upload both files anyhow. The only extra time is the time spent creating the extra zip file.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: The Art of War

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
ORIGINAL: htullio
7) This is a complication that I would avoid. It brings away a lot of time
The purpose of this is to prevent the easiest way of cheating (closing the game before after you see a bad result, and then trying again until you get a good one).

The cost for the anti-cheat is nearly zero, since the person has to upload both files anyhow. The only extra time is the time spent creating the extra zip file.

Does this actually help ? Once you've moved to the combat phase you could just reload that couldn't you ?
Regards
David
ess1
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:13 am
Location: Newport, Shropshire, U.K.

RE: The Art of War

Post by ess1 »

As this is a tutorial who wants to cheat?
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: The Art of War

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: ess1
As this is a tutorial who wants to cheat?

Darn good point [:)]
Regards
David
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

Good point. Forget my idea about that one. :)
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: The Art of War

Post by Jimmer »

Let's get some more comments on the "house rules".
 
Also, let's lay down how we are going to start. This is a vote, more or less, so if you fail to give your input, I'll assume you are with the majority. I will NOT chase people down to get them to vote.
 
The first thing we need to discuss is whether to use the GAP program or not. Tied to that are two other decisions: Start of game wars and bidding limits. The GAP allows nations to start the game at war, and it caps bids at 30. We ran into some trouble in a previous game where one player started the game at war, assuming others all would as well. But, the game had more conservative players (all of the other 6), and so poor Prussia was alone at war with France in January 1805. Furthermore, since this happened pre-game, France was allowed to set up ready to invade (knowing he had only one serious enemy for at least the first month).
 
Needless to say, what this taught the players is that one should be careful with pre-game wars. While they save PP, they REQUIRE diplomacy. Personally, I could not care less whether others start at war, but I guarantee that I will not. So, my "vote" is to allow it.
 
The second part is the cap for Victory Points bid. The GAP caps it at 30, which is absurdly low for France. So, I'm a strong negative vote on VP capping, and thus I'm opposed to using the GAP. I've written my own version of the GAP that doesn't have limits.
 
Let's hear it from others, both on house rules and on the two items I listed today. The two from today we need answers on right away, so I'll close the discussion and vote down tomorrow night (Wednesday night, Sept 17) at 9:00 PM US Central time (GMT-6 +1 for daylight time). That gives people almost two full days to comment.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”