Game enhancement(Lending corps)

[bresh]

I actually posted this on general EIANW thread.

But after some consideration i thought it might fit better in tech-thread.

I am bit puzzled by why the lend corps is in diplmacy phase.
When we do not have "combined" movement, its pretty hard to reinforce your own force, if you lend it in each diplomacy phase to your ally.

I would strongly encourage lending to be moved to Reinforcement phase, that way you can reinforce before you lend.
Hope lending corps with leaders gets fixed soon, but anyway, thats another reason to move it to Reinforcement phase.
That way you could actually remove a attached leader, so you could lend the corps to your ally.

The diplomacy phase can in fact have great inpact on how to loan, maybe someone DOW's you and you want those forces elsewhere ?
Also in theory your ally could DOW on you, while you lend him your corps ?
It would fit much better for game purposes in Reinforcement step.

A nation like Russia is down to its knees in EIANW already as it is, smaller corps, cant loan corps away with leaders, cant bug supply from allies. So need long extensive supply chains. So please atleast fix this little thing as a start

Kind Regards
Bresh

[eske]

Very good thoughts bresh. Very good !!
 
/eske

[Ashtar]

I second this!

And please, allow loaning both corps with leaders and fleets!!!!!!!

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: bresh

I actually posted this on general EIANW thread.

But after some consideration i thought it might fit better in tech-thread.

I am bit puzzled by why the lend corps is in diplmacy phase.
When we do not have "combined" movement, its pretty hard to reinforce your own force, if you lend it in each diplomacy phase to your ally.

I would strongly encourage lending to be moved to Reinforcement phase, that way you can reinforce before you lend.
Hope lending corps with leaders gets fixed soon, but anyway, thats another reason to move it to Reinforcement phase.
That way you could actually remove a attached leader, so you could lend the corps to your ally.

The diplomacy phase can in fact have great inpact on how to loan, maybe someone DOW's you and you want those forces elsewhere ?
Also in theory your ally could DOW on you, while you lend him your corps ?
It would fit much better for game purposes in Reinforcement step.

A nation like Russia is down to its knees in EIANW already as it is, smaller corps, cant loan corps away with leaders, cant bug supply from allies. So need long extensive supply chains. So please atleast fix this little thing as a start

Kind Regards
Bresh

Yes indeed -good point there bresh. It is a left over issue from the old “diplomacy reaction phase” that was never readdressed when we ditched that phase (too many other distractions to help whittle away the years).

On it. Thanks

Richard

[Grognot]

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

I second this!

And please, allow loaning both corps with leaders and fleets!!!!!!!

Perhaps with -1 strategic, -2 tactical rating, and effective loss of at least one rank (B -> C for instance).

It seems probable that the leader ratings include synergies resulting from the commanders understanding what their troops are capable of (and not!) and how they're organized, and how to motivate them, and the willingness of the troops to follow those leaders. Would Davout in charge of relatively poorly organized and trained Turkish feudal levies suddenly be able to make them competent at outflanking?

I think the rule from the AH version -- that even with combined movement, the leader of a joint force had to be from the side which had the most corps present -- is not unreasonable. If anything, the rules are probably too generous with respect to how well multinational forces cooperate (that is, zero penalties -- full cohesion in battle, full movement rate).

[Ashtar]

ORIGINAL: Grognot
Perhaps with -1 strategic, -2 tactical rating, and effective loss of at least one rank (B -> C for instance).
It seems probable that the leader ratings include synergies resulting from the commanders understanding what their troops are capable of (and not!) (...)

Can we focus on staying reasonably faithful to EIA mechanics - which is not the case right now?
You could be right that the leader should come from the largest force on ground, but here we have a much worse issue here with the lack of combined movement and supply from allied depots. Take Russia perspectives for instance: Currently, a much common EIA scenario - Russia allying with Austria and/or Prussia to invade France is severely limited:

a) Russia cannot forage its corps on allied depots, so to reach France it has to loan them to allies.
b) Which currently means no Russian leaders and no political point at stake for Russia in this war.

Quite unsatisfactory indeed - which sometimes makes me wonder if the playtesters (which I guess made a good work on coding bug issues) had a real knowledge of EIA mechanics.

Not to speak of the lack of both combined naval movement and the possibility to transport allied forces on your fleets...

[Grognot]

Loaning leaders would be an even further deviation.  And you're ignoring the possibility of sea supply; the various minors on the coast that can be conq'd for supply; and the political points Russia gets for crunching French stacks and eventually being sued for peace -- much easier to do when allies are doing the same.

Better to impl combined movement than leader loaning.  Fewer purely-gamey absurdities that way.  I'd still rather see bug-squashing first, because there shouldn't be things like majors "conquering" minors that they already own, or a major being forced to surrender to a minor, or problems attacking multinat fleets, or "bankruptcy" when you have $200+,  or majors keeping minors even when in fiasco, or so forth.

You can also transport allied troops on your fleets.  It's backwards in terms of how it can trigger a war -- a DOW should not be required to attack a "neutral" fleet that is transporting hostiles, per the AH rule set -- but it's doable.

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

ORIGINAL: Grognot
Perhaps with -1 strategic, -2 tactical rating, and effective loss of at least one rank (B -> C for instance).
It seems probable that the leader ratings include synergies resulting from the commanders understanding what their troops are capable of (and not!) (...)

Can we focus on staying reasonably faithful to EIA mechanics - which is not the case right now?
You could be right that the leader should come from the largest force on ground, but here we have a much worse issue here with the lack of combined movement and supply from allied depots. Take Russia perspectives for instance: Currently, a much common EIA scenario - Russia allying with Austria and/or Prussia to invade France is severely limited:

a) Russia cannot forage its corps on allied depots, so to reach France it has to loan them to allies.
b) Which currently means no Russian leaders and no political point at stake for Russia in this war.

Quite unsatisfactory indeed - which sometimes makes me wonder if the playtesters (which I guess made a good work on coding bug issues) had a real knowledge of EIA mechanics.

Not to speak of the lack of both combined naval movement and the possibility to transport allied forces on your fleets...

Here we go again . . . .

Beta testers did not code EiANW Ashtar

1. Cannot use ally’s depots without loaning corps: a programming issue (Status: current supply code preventing fix)
2. Cannot lend leaders: programming issue (Status: possible future fix)
3. Lack of political point distribution for allied force: programming issue (Status: planned future fix)
4. Cannot loan fleets: programming issue (Status: planned future enhancement)

Richard