Correct: Two clicks versus one. The same thing could be done by having two buttons as well.

<t> Realistically, very little. But, the check box requires the code to perform a decision, which typically adds to debug time. When it's only ONE decision, it's not likely to be a problem. But, it is, as I said, "a bit more complicated".<br/>
<br/>
However, having a check box (or, other decision ...

<r>
<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: NeverMan<br/>
The real problem is having to download possibly a ton of files, but that is for another post.<br/>
<br/>
I agree that this won't save much time, but I can't see this taking more than a few lines of code and possibly 30 minutes to write.<br/>
<br ...

<t> The naval rules are simple because this is primarily a land-combat based diplomatic game. As it was in real life, game naval issues don't amount to much. In the entire period covered by the basic game there was ONE sea battle of note. Naval battles are at best a sidelight, and that is as they ...

<t> In the original rules, the phasing player in a BB combat is considered the attacker, and must therefore win the encounter. In other words, blockader wins ties. This is different from other interceptions, where the intercepter loses ties. There was a separate rule covering it (6.2.3.2.1).<br ...

<r>
<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis<br/>
<br/>
Should not announce this until the turn comes into play???<br/>

<e>[/quote]</e></QUOTE>
Correct. Another player can gather information from the fact that someone does not intend to do reinforcement next month. Not much, but at a ...

He conquere it in the month before an economics month (August, in this case). In September, no income was gained from it.

Sure looks like a bug.

<t> Before you post it as a bug, make absolutely certain you did not conquer the minor by IT foraging to death on IT'S turn (after yours) in August. In that case, no, it should not become yours until October.<br/>
<br/>
But, if you broke in and won the battle in August, yes it should be yours by ...

<t> That would work even better.<br/>
<br/>
When you put the code in, make sure you allow a "grace period" of some nature. Perhaps the host declares a new version on his turn via email, and then each person has until their next phase (the one immediately following the host) to upgrade. Note that ...

<t> I love the idea. But, there's a security risk: This allows someone to tweak a copy of the game using beta software and then send it out via the production software.<br/>
<br/>
So, in addition to this, add one thing: A field in the database that only gets populated with the version of beta ...

<t> Pzgndr: I agree.<br/>
&nbsp;<br/>
Ndrose: In our games it was binding. But, that was a house-rule.<br/>
&nbsp;<br/>
Yes, I think the code should enforce agreed-upon negotiated peace agreements. In one of the posts above, I mention "greying out" the items that are part of the settlement data ...

<r>
<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: gazfun<br/>
Yes the latter happened, and where France was granted a unconditional, but the France Turkey Alliance was broken with a -2pp to Turkey.<br/>
wierd.<e>[/quote]</e></QUOTE>
That would be a bug, then.<br/>

<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>But I would like to ...

<r>
<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: ndrose<br/>
But what I'm talking about is what happens between allies. That is, in addition to distinguishing between conditional and unconditional surrenders in deciding whether to force an alliance break, you should be able to distinguish between, say, "my ...

<r>
<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis<br/>
<br/>
Holy COW! I'm not sure I will live long enough for this Jimmer LOL!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>

<e>[/quote]</e></QUOTE>
Actually, my bet is that we, through discussion in this thread, can come up with a model that's a lot easier to ...

<r>
<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: ndrose<br/>

<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>1. For simplicity it would be good to preselect all conditional and unconditional surrender settings with perhaps another checkbox or two added to the current system to provide more choices. This may not be ideal but should be ...

<r> Good thoughts. See embedded responses.
<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: pzgndr<br/>
<br/>
A couple of thoughts come to mind:<br/>
<br/>
1. For simplicity it would be good to preselect all conditional and unconditional surrender settings with perhaps another checkbox or two added to the ...

<r> Now, for negotiated surrenders, a table of choices would have to be built. ALL powers currently at war would have a section, even if they aren't interested in surrendering or being surrendered to.<br/>
&nbsp;<br/>
In addition to having all of the powers listed, every possible choice they could ...

<t> First, I would add a LOT more steps. Much of the surrender process now is done prior to the event, using guesswork to try to figure out what you might take as conditions. This allows virtually no freedom to negotiate, and frequently presents end results that are different from what a player ...

If you could redesign the way surrendering works in EiANW, how would it work? Feel free to write any ideas you have, for the whole process or for just one small piece of it. This thread is for brainstorming about surrendering.