List of rules bugs which need a fix

[Ashtar]

First of all I would like to thank Marshall and the rest of Matrix for working hard for the 1.01 patch and to generally improve EIANW.

Second, I am trying to keep a list of rules mistakes which, sadly, detract a bit from the beautiful EIA experience. They come more or less in importance order, from core, very important rules to less important ones.
I hope Matrix will take care of them in future patches. Then we will have an almost perfect game!!

1. Work on combined movement or, if not possible,

1a) Allow to loan fleets

1b) Allow Turkey to loan feudal corps

1c) Give/subtract pp for loaned corps fighting battles (either as in EIA rules or with some zero
sum rule).

2. Allow France and GB to chose movement order (Land for France and Naval for GB) during the reinforcement phase, not the diplomacy one (as in the original rules).

3. Fix Ottoman empire moral if Turkish controlled - now the fix seems to be only nominal.

4. As per original rules, let the Turkish Feudal corps have not to supply or foraging in the land turn in which they stand up.

5. Dardanelles. No one should be able to pass fleets through the dardanelles without the consensus of the Maj power controlling it (usually the Turk).

6. Allow corps to draw supply from allied depots (add an optional order to depots like "supply allies") as in 7.4.2.2 of original rules.

7. Add Overwhelming numbers rule (combat with a factor ratio 5:1 or more are treated as trivial).

8. Implement the 4 corps per depot maximum supply limit as an optional rule.

9. We need some anti-cheating rules, some proposal in this thread: tm.asp?m=1677231

10. Give/subtract 0.5 pp only per fleet in Naval battle (old EIA fleets correspond to approximately two EIANW ones, actual pp distribution - 1pp per fleet - is unbalanced).

11. Allow to add newly conquered states to already formed political combinations.

Thanks for your efforts

[delatbabel]

11. Implement the rest of the alternative political combinations. e.g. Kingdom of Italy, Kingdom of Westphalia, Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. In particular if this is made an optional rule, the movement bonus for these troops being French controlled only applies if the appropriate kingdom is formed (e.g. Hesse troops do not move 4 unless part of a French controlled Kingdom of Westphalia or Confederation of the Rhine).

[delatbabel]

Combined movement does not need any more than:

* Delay all major power's moves that have declared combined movement until the stage at which the last of those major powers would have moved.

* Delay all combat of those major powers until the end of the last one of those major powers' movement phases.

e.g. instead of doing:

* Austrian land movement
* Austrian land combat
* Prussian land movement
* Prussian land combat

if they have declared combined movement, perform:

* Austrian land momement
* Prussian land movement
* Austrian land combat (including any stacks containing both Austrian and Prussian corps)
* Prussian land combat (just the remaining, Prussian-only stacks).

The above would work for naval as well as land.

[bresh]

Hope you mean 7 is only optional.
And not implemented directly.
 
Regards
Bresh

[pzgndr]

7. Implement the 4 corps per depot maximum supply limit optional rule.

Yes, this should be optional. I would add to this and suggest that [4] corps also be an editable parameter so players can experiment with greater or lesser supply restrictions. Perhaps even editable by major power, which could be a nice adjustor for AI opponents or handicap for new players.

12. Implement the UMP rules? (For those players who do not want AI-controlled opponents in their pbem games...)

[zaquex]

what about the issue with placing minors navy and turkish feudals foraging at stand up?

[Ashtar]

Added no supply/foraging for Turkish feudal on stand up turn

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

First of all I would like to thank Marshall and the rest of Matrix for working hard for the 1.01 patch and to generally improve EIANW.

Second, I am trying to keep a list of rules mistakes which, sadly, detract a bit from the beautiful EIA experience. They come more or less in importance order, from core, very important rules to less important ones.
I hope Matrix will take care of them in future patches. Then we will have an almost perfect game!!

1. Work on combined movement or, if not possible,

1a) Allow to loan fleets

1b) Allow Turkey to loan feudal corps

1c) Give/subtract pp for loaned corps fighting battles (either as in EIA rules or with some zero
sum rule).

2. Allow France and GB to chose movement order (Land for France and Naval for GB) during the reinforcement phase, not the diplomacy one (as in the original rules).

3. Fix Ottoman empire moral if Turkish controlled - now the fix seems to be only nominal.

4. As per original rules, let the Turkish Feudal corps have not to supply or foraging in the land turn in which they stand up.

5. Dardanelles. No one should be able to pass fleets through the dardanelles without the consensus of the Maj power controlling it (usually the Turk).

6. Allow corps to draw supply from allied depots (add an optional order to depots like "supply allies") as in 7.4.2.2 of original rules.

7. Add Overwhelming numbers rule (combat with a factor ratio 5:1 or more are treated as trivial).

8. Implement the 4 corps per depot maximum supply limit as an optional rule.

9. We need some anti-cheating rules, some proposal in this thread: tm.asp?m=1677231

10. Give/subtract 0.5 pp only per fleet in Naval battle (old EIA fleets correspond to approximately two EIANW ones, actual pp distribution - 1pp per fleet - is unbalanced).

11. Allow to add newly conquered states to already formed political combinations.

Thanks for your efforts

Francesco,

Many of these items keep resurfacing so I’ll give it go answering your post.

1a) Agreed, but it will be a structural Db change and we are trying to group as many Db changes as possible into one future patch

1b) Already implemented in 1.02

1c) Personally agree but nothing in stone yet (on the back burner as we wade thru the bug list)

2) This deviation is not likely to change. The sooner the players know the better. Are you saying as Austria, you would rather know during the naval phase that France changed its land move order versus knowing about it in the Reinforcement phase?

3) Partially fixed in 1.01. Apparently they are moving with morale boost (when Turkish controlled OE) but going into battle with older the morale (bug fix for 1.02)

4) That’s a bug and will be addressed in 1.02

5) Been sitting on the enhancement list for a long time – hopefully someday after the bug fixes, the AI improvement and then an editor we can visit that list.

6) Not likely to happen. Marshall’s supply code would need a major rewrite. You will have to rely on loaning them in order to pick up the cost.

7) Agree and it should be easy enough to implement.

8) See #6 – sorry. Perhaps a clever workaround might satisfy the need but I would push to make it an option.

9) Agree; something will be done to make it difficult to cheat. Btw, I like your ideas.

10) Agree and it should be easy enough to implement.

11) Unfortunately, that would fall under an enhancement (High priority: Not currently implemented but must have).

Richard

[Jimmer]

Response to Ashtar on #7: This should not be changed. With the regular combat rules, it is possible for a small force to defeat a large one. If it were changed to trivial, they would have no chance. It's only by picking the right chit combination that it could happen, because the enemy has to be held to the 1 or 2 casualty columns.

Response to Modadman on #2: That's one reason. But, a far more important one is so that France or GB can decide when they want to go based upon who just declared war on them. Scenario:

- GB and France at war
- Spain is going to join France at war, but GB doesn't know it. So, GB is going last, as she usually does (diplomacy phase).
- Spain goes to war (diplomacy phase)
- GB sets naval movement choice (diplomacy phase)
- In Naval move, Spain is able to to spaces all around the big UK island.
- GB cannot kill all of the fleets, because there are just too many of them.
- Game is over for GB, because GB has been invaded.

This could never happen in the board game, because GB and France got to choose their order later in the turn than the "one time for all" diplomacy phase that is in the computer game. But, it will always happen (or, CAN happen) in the computer version.

A similar scenario can be constructed for France's land, but it's usually not quite so devastating.

[MarshallEllis]

What if we adeed the movement change capability in the reinforcement phase and ALSO kept it in the diplomacy phase?
 
 

[Monadman]

I wouldn’t do that Marshall, it would allow players too much leverage to change the order in one phase and then change it again in the next. The way we have it, with simultaneous reporting of the diplomacy phase results, makes Jimmer’s point a good one, so consider the change to the reinforcement phase.

Richard

[Soapy Frog]

I think this is a good list of fixes, good compilation Ashtar. Just to add to this thread:
 
- Allow retreat inside city before Combat

[Ashtar]

Richard,
thanks a lot for your reply, it is nice to see Matrix is working to better this game.

Jimmer nicely explained the reasons behind point 2, so no need to add comments anymore.

Concerning 1c, I guess it is needed since after all this game is about pp and combined
movement is not allowed. Consider an aggressive Prussian-Austian-Russian alliance against France.
Since Russian controlled troops cannot forage on allied depots, most practical way to
bring war to France would be to lend them to allies and not the reverse. But then
Russia will not get so much gain from the war, so why they should start it?
Better to ally with France and crush Austria and Prussia for yummi pp...

Said that, thanks again and keep doing good work

[Grimrod42]

PP gain and loss is esstential to the game

Also the fact the the Russia can lend corps (for example) to the allies to fight France without ever declaring war is very proplematic.

I really don't see how doing a combined movement would have been so difficult. Im not a programmer or anything, but logically its just a modification of the movement order.

[carnifex]

2) This deviation is not likely to change. The sooner the players know the better. Are you saying as Austria, you would rather know during the naval phase that France changed its land move order versus knowing about it in the Reinforcement phase?

As Austria, I would rather if I was able to pick France's movement order.  When you say "the sooner the players know the better", that's not a benefit for everyone like for example using crisper fonts - instead it's a zero-sum change - it gets better for some nations and worse for others, and so it's a game-balance move. All things being equal, I personally would prefer both GB and FRA pick their move orders as in the boardgame.

[AresMars]

I agree with carnifex.  The way it worked in EIA was perfectly fine.  And it should be set ONCE and only once.
 
Just like there needs to be a DECLARATION of Combined Movement for Allies.... [8|]
 
 
 
 

[Grimrod42]

EiA was a perfectly fine place to base the rules on!!!

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Richard,
thanks a lot for your reply, it is nice to see Matrix is working to better this game.

Jimmer nicely explained the reasons behind point 2, so no need to add comments anymore.

Yes, I stand corrected on my comment - we will change it back to the reinforcement phase (because the original rules – naval and land phases - will not work in EiANW). FYI, there use to be a Diplomacy Reaction Phase in EiANW that was combined into one phase (the Diplomacy Phase) when the standing orders format was implemented. Unfortunately, we overlooked the ramifications of leaving it in the diplomacy phase – sorry.

Richard

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What if we adeed the movement change capability in the reinforcement phase and ALSO kept it in the diplomacy phase?

That would work. I could envision some house rules saying "only use one or the other, not both", but that would be a workable solution. I like it. (I'm assuming that there is a technical reason for not removing it.)

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

I wouldn’t do that Marshall, it would allow players too much leverage to change the order in one phase and then change it again in the next. The way we have it, with simultaneous reporting of the diplomacy phase results, makes Jimmer’s point a good one, so consider the change to the reinforcement phase.

Richard

I agree, but not if it means holding off the change until version 2.x or something.