December Update!

[Reknoy]

If by jumping into the middle of this I have missed something, please do not hesitate to hit me over the head with a large wooden badger.

By letting the victor choose three and then the PC blocks, aren't you losing the fun of having the opponent errantly block the wrong pick? A minor point, perhaps.

[martinmb]

Reknoy,

Not really, as Marshall said earlier the AI will have choosen a "Grand Strategy" to follow. Under such a strategy the computor would probably have a list of terms of surrender listed in a priority for which to "deselect".
Most of the times that I have played EiA (since it came out), I have surrendered many many times. In all of the games that I have played, except for one, it has always been a "house rule" or al least the "gentlman's way" to talk to the defeated and talk about some of the minor details. Our rule of thumb was he who started it was to say it first.

M

[Reknoy]

No doubt -- and I follow you on the "gentlemen's" way of handling it.

Still, it gives the game that diplomatic edge to be able to hose the defeated country and after they surrender conditionally (having protected corps), you take land and demand a province (provided the prerequisites are met).

But I see your point. Regardless, it's not something I would lose sleep over (if the game did not allow for such shenanigans)

Reknoy

[carnifex]

on a more technical note;

please try to put all the AI scripts in separate easy to edit files for easy moddabiltiy

if the AI files are easy to modify then the game will organically improve over time as people mod the files, and bugs can be found quickly by easily modifying a single value. if you could also include some kind of documentation on it that would be cool.

[Sir Neil]

I would also like to help at testing the game, It would also give me a chance to get a preview done, hoppfully by that time my site will be finished.

[EarlPembroke]

Originally posted by carnifex
on a more technical note;

please try to put all the AI scripts in separate easy to edit files for easy moddabiltiy

if the AI files are easy to modify then the game will organically improve over time as people mod the files, and bugs can be found quickly by easily modifying a single value. if you could also include some kind of documentation on it that would be cool.

Agreed, Carnifex. I think that was mentioned in an earlier post (I mentioned it somewhere, and probably someone else was first).

Well, Martin & Reknoy, now we can read (in the January update) the flow of how they have done the surrender code.

[Reknoy]

Yes, I do like the flow of the surrender process. Quite true to the rules.

Not that it necc. matters, but it certainly speaks to the designers' willingness to track the rules. Most cool.

Reknoy

[Marshall Ellis]

Hello all:

Interesting points... (Scratching my head)???

Maybe a little more detail should help...

Forgive the simplicity...

[SURRENDER]

Example is : France Surrenders to Spain (I know, I know crazy example but endulge me for a moment).

Game performs as below:


1. Spain, France is suing for peace. Which peace will you offer?
A. Conditional
B. Uncondtional

2. Spain offers conditional.

3. France must accept and chooses A.1. Condition (Needn't remove any corps).

4. List box pops up with terms B2-B7 options as available. Note that B1 is not available to be picked.

Basically, the computer won't let an invalid choice be picked. As for simultaneous peace with multiple countries, No condition can be picked more than once (Except C6 which I have not coded for as of yet) but the premise would be to scroll through the list of victors letting the computer eliminate choices already made by previous victors.

As for my order of selection ... haven't tracked DOW dates yet but that is what should and could be done.

As for simultaneous peace with an alliance, I was simply going to allow the power with the higher PS pick first. This was easier than a competitive die roll.

One problem that I forsee is how to do this in PBEM without blasting 100 emails per surrender ... I'll work on this !

[AI SCRIPTS]

This is a great subject. I'm intrigued at the idea but we still don't know how much editing/scripting to allow the players to do. These are development scripts in the game and are pretty low level. Allowing that much control could endanger stability with certain combinations picked so please don't think that there will be a VISUAL EIA++ development language out there ... I would have bloody (or bloodier) nubs banging on the KBD to do that!

[COUNTRY COMBINATIONS IN MULTIPLAYER]

Great subject. In a hotseat mode, allowing the PC to control certain MPs is not a problem. PBEM/IP well ... we haven't tackled that one yet except maybe to allow a variant of UMP rules to be in play???

[SCENARIOS AND AVAILABLE MP COUNTRIES]

We're just writing 1805 NOW but YES there will be many scenarios in the game including 1788, etc. Today the only countries that could be played by a human/AI are the standard
France, Gbr, Spain, Prussia, Turkey, Russia and Austria. These countries could be played by a human or AI.

Anyway, sorry for the long message but I LOVE reading these posts because you guys have so much more experience than I and it helps me greatly to see conversations from veteran Guard units. I wish I could reply more often but then nothing would get done!

Thanks everybody

[Reknoy]

The process you describe for surrender sounds great.

As for the rest, it's amazing to have so much interactive contact with the developers. You're gaining more customers hopefully as a result.

Reknoy

[EarlPembroke]

Marshall,

Thanks for posting occasionally. That is the best policy, as you said, so you get some coding done and we stay excited about the game.

In terms of player editing, I was thinking along the lines of creating new scenarios (so assigning different province ownership, creating new leaders, editing the relationship between countries, maximum allowable and type of corps, etc.). Trying to make rules (e.g. attrition) editable would be a nightmare. Anyway, it will be great to have the game playable on computer - especially by developers who ask for customer input!

Keep up the good work.

[Capitaine]

Tuning in late to the discussion but do like the way it proceeds.

Surrender really, really should remain as close to the game as possible, as most state. It's okay to add more "realism" if elected, but please do no detract from the game and the nature of military alliances the way EU and EU2 did. As long as a rational method can be devised for surrendering to a coalition, giving proper weight to historical factors that would've been involved in each coalition member's "voice" in the terms, it'll be fine.

I've played EIA a number of times, but not excessively, so my memory is a bit rusty. I'll get out my copy and peruse it for anything I might add, now that my eye has alit on this game discussion.

Great job by producer talking with customers about development decisions and issues.