1.02j feedback

[obsidiandrag]

Here is another one for the Ottoman corp and their strange siege tactics. As England I have been besieging Paris. On the saved file, I have just moved the Egyptian Corp into Paris with only one British Corp (Paris is fully garrisoned). After the land phase and before the combat phase... the French garrison dissappears, there is no battle and no log entry and it is before the combat phase actually starts. I hope this one helps, either way it makes it easy to get through a garrison.

[obsidiandrag]

Here is another odd cookie. In this one England has just attacked Strasbourg in NE France. At the beginning of the battle if you look at the log was the English Guard corp w/ Moore and the Syrian corp against one French corp and Ney. France successfully withdrew so the English assaulted the city. The result was a breech (with the Ottoman corp so the garrison dissappeared automatically?) Then the fun part. Still in the combat phase I tried to click on garrison - didn't work - so I tried to click off of the area and back onto the English corp at which time the English corp moved to Zurich and the Syrian corp stayed there in the city still. Here is the file as it happened with the log.

[obsidiandrag]

Here is a picture of the French attempt to retake Paris after the Seige. Notice the Egyptian corp (full 16I 4C) and the English corp with 13I and the 1I garrison from the corp making the total 30I and 4C INSIDE the city. However, also notice I can select a combat chit so am I really in the city>? Even with the Garrison marker there??

[Thresh]

Obsidian, I don't think thats a city fight.

It looks like a fight outside the city, with the garrison partcipating, but I could be wrong there.

Thresh

[NeverMan]

Yeah, the bad thing about having the "public" report problems is that some maybe just a misunderstanding of the rules, since they are not exactly Empires in Arms rules, like the game implies. Many hardcord EiA gamers might not read the rules front to back thinking "most of the rules are the same", which is not the case.

It will be better once they get a full time crew on it.

[ndrose]

The garrison shouldn't be participating in a combat outside the city. That's not just a rules deviation. I've never seen that happen in EiANW before; it's sure to be a bug related to the others caused by Ottoman corps participating in sieges.

[obsidiandrag]

I have another bug / complaint for the Ottoman Empire. You can not exchange factors between corp. If you are deep in French territory and wanted to swap out a cav unit into another corp, you are out of luck. An infantry you can garrison and possibly pick up with the other corp (haven't tried yet will do later) but can not go directly from one corp to another of different nations for the Ottoman corp.

[La Provence]

Is it possible to upgrade to 1.02J (from 1.02G) without crash in our PBEM games ???

[Marshall Ellis]

La Provence:
 
Yes BUT wait until "K" gets posted since "J" did make your PBEM game files grow VERY large! "K" should be up shortly.

 

[La Provence]

Thanks ...... and wait  !

[dodod]

is the pp issue corrected with loaning corps? or is that a future patch.

[Marshall Ellis]

dodod:
 
I have not added this yet to 1.02. I will look to add this in 1.03.
Should I add / subtract the same pp for all MPs participating?
I know there was a thread on this and I don't think there was a consensus as to what should be done???
 
 
 

[ecn1]

I would say the general consensus is to add/substract pp from each player involved in the battle based on the proportion of corps involved in the battle within each side, with the total number of PP awarded to the winning SIDE or taken from the losing SIDE (note, not player, but side) never to exceed the maximum of 3PP set for battles...(not including PP bonuses like Napoleon commanding, etc)

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

dodod:

I have not added this yet to 1.02. I will look to add this in 1.03.
Should I add / subtract the same pp for all MPs participating?
I know there was a thread on this and I don't think there was a consensus as to what should be done???

Well i think there are 2-3 schools(of how people played this). Im bit tired but i try give my view.

I prefer the school where the loss in pp is shared, while the gain is for per MPS. (with CAP at +3/-3 pr battle not including special leaders).
So one MP joining an army with just 1 corps, can gain top 3 pps for a battle, but only looses 1 (if lost).

Since this make a the best reason for combining forces with your allies.
I think someone once said on the average Napoleon should win 66% of his battles.

Why would any alliance form if they where loosing around 3pps in 66% of all those battles ?
As i said, why should a MP help if his net outcome of every 3 battles is "-1".

The share in pp loss is to even these odds out. And is to me rather logical.

In the mentioned thread, some wrote that the net gain/loss should always be equal, but noone is ever loosing extra when loosing to specific leaders(Nelson/Napoleon), nor do they gain extra when winning against those.

Always round fractions up, within the Caps.

Like many wrote Fleets should perhaps only be 1/2 pp, or Heavy fleets 2/3 and Light Fleets 1/3.

Im sure most people would say, how they played it was the right one.
And it will be imposible to satisfy all, unless you put this into options, and "all players per gamegroup can actually agree on witch they use".


Regards
Bresh

[NeverMan]

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.

Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.

[dodod]

I agree with ecn...ahem...
shared win, shared loss...in proportion to what you loan.
 
only other addition is that ties or fractions go the person leading the battle...

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.

Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.

You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +3PP, Pr +3PP, Au +3PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

It seems that ecn1 and bresh are saying the same thing and I agree with both of them. My opinion was outlined in detail in the thread that Marshall refers to.

Odd, it seems to me that ecn1 and bresh are saying vastly different things.
Ecn1 is saying to cap per SIDE for the winners. Bresh is saying to cap per MP for the winning side.
I havent played EiA enough to form my own opinion on this matter.

You are correct actually, reading it again, it looks as though ecn1 is saying that BOTH winning and losing should be based on the corps there.

I totally disagree with this.

The winning PP is based on the losing corps there and the losing PP is based on the losing corps there, that's how it should be. If there is a makeup of 1GB, 2Pr, 3Au fighting 6 Fr:

If France loses:
Fr loses 3PP
GB +1PP, Pr +1PP, Au +2PP

If France wins:
Fr wins 3 PP
GB -1PP, Pr -1PP, Au -2PP

That is the advantage of stacked movement/fighting. It really helps the coalition stand a change against France, otherwise why would you stack at all? That doesn't make sense. Personally, I have talked about this ad nausem in another thread.

What if in the example FR only has 1-2 corps ??

Fr loosing 1 PP.
I would say GB +1, PR +1PP, AU +1PP.
Sounds most logical. as fractions are rounded up always.

So what if France has 3-4 Corps ?


Regards
Bresh

[Grognot]

As was pointed out every time that question was asked in the other thread, another reason to stack is so that you don't get obliterated.  *Even if no PP were involved* and the game became a pure land-grab game, it is rather helpful for Austria and Prussia to stack so they don't get individually annihilated by the superior French forces.