Priorities for 1.03

[Dancing Bear]

Hi Marshall,
   The AI enhancements are needed and will be good for the solo players, but I imagne these might be part of a long and difficult task. Would it be difficult or time consuming to allow an option for simultaneous diplomacy, reinforcement and economic turns to keep those of us who are on the PBEM stream from going crazy as an interim measure?

[Cunctator]

IMHO if simultaneous diplo, reinf and econ phases would become an implemented option, it would be chosen by the vast majority of pbem games.
There's no serious reason to follow the exact order of play during those phases.
The effect of removing a certain leader in a certain area can be important once in a hundred of turns.
We have to study and to adopt every measure to speed up pbem games.
 
 

[Minedog]

ORIGINAL: bresh


Mindog you might wanna read other older threads to.
Atleast it been previous announced in some thread.
1. Combined movement is not really gonna happen due to programming issues.


Regards
Bresh

That doesn't make it right though..

Napoleon fought a series of Coalitions and allies, and there are few Napoleonic battles between just 2 nations. Austerlitz, Eylau, Dresden, Leipzig, Waterloo, and the various Anglo-Spanish battles. At sea, Trafalgar..

Loaned corps/fleets is not really the same. The point is nations against France, not nation plus some loaners. There are huge economic and political aspects here.

And really, what is the programming issue? If they can change the ownership of corps from one nation to another, why can't they be multi-nation owned.

or why can't the sequence of play be adjusted as it is done in the game. If France and Britain can be moved, why not the others.

So Technically the Land Sequence would be;
Russia
Turkey
Russia-Turkey
Austria
Russia-Austria
Turkey-Austria
Russia-Turkey-Austria
Prussia
Russia-Prussia
Russia-Turkey-Prussia
Russia-Austria-Prussia
Russia-Turkey-Prussia-Austria
etc.

so to select Combined movement, you chose the desired group in the Land Sequence..

as I said, I just don't believe it is "too hard" to programme.. more like too much bother..

[Marshall Ellis]

Minedog:
 
Changing the move order does not do it. Changing the move order is easy, you're right BUT what about combat? There would still be a combat phase at the end of EACH land phase thus you're not allowing allies to attack together. Delaying combat until the end of certain sequences is a problem. I would have to allow multiple MPs' forces to trigger combat in one MP's combat phase. This is where it gets tricky.
Again, I would ask what shortcomings does the loaned corps function have that I could change to make it better?
 
 

[pzgndr]

Only Marshall can address the programming difficulty.  As complicated as it may be, the player control issue during pbem file exchanges may be more challenging.  Plus the computer game version has to integrate AI programming into the mix.  It's not just pbem software; players already have that available to them.  The pragmatic solution with this game version may be to select a lead nation for an upcoming battle/campaign and allied nations loan corps/leaders accordingly.  The alternative is a can of worms, both to program and to execute with or without AI players involved.  It would be interesting to see if Marshall could eventually develop an option to expand on the multi-nation ownership and adjustable sequence of play idea, but this cannot be a priority until other basic promised features are completed - like editor and other scenarios, etc.
 
With loaned corps and leaders resolved for the time being and shared PP more or less agreed on, what about depot supply being made available for allied units?  This should be doable, perhaps with an increased cost all paid for by the allied nation.  I haven't yet gotten deep enough into a later game to figure out how to stretch one's limited number of depots without allied assistance.  And couldn't minor nations with forces be permitted at least one home country depot for their own use?  I find it odd that major countries have to sacrifice one of their depots for say Sweden or Egypt, else those forces face foraging problems in their own country.  Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing the supply depots reconsidered at some point. 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Minedog:

Changing the move order does not do it. Changing the move order is easy, you're right BUT what about combat? There would still be a combat phase at the end of EACH land phase thus you're not allowing allies to attack together. Delaying combat until the end of certain sequences is a problem. I would have to allow multiple MPs' forces to trigger combat in one MP's combat phase. This is where it gets tricky.
Again, I would ask what shortcomings does the loaned corps function have that I could change to make it better?

I just don't see why you can't do combined movement such that the battles at the end of the land phase only happen IF

1) Only that MPs corps are involved in that battle.
2) The MP's land movement was last out of all the MPs involved in the "combined" attack.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I just don't see why you can't do combined movement such that the battles at the end of the land phase only happen IF

1) Only that MPs corps are involved in that battle.
2) The MP's land movement was last out of all the MPs involved in the "combined" attack.

Just how would the game know if only that MPs corps are involved or not after seeing only the movement of the first MP?
Heck, how would even the player know?

Example:
Prussia and Austria agrees to jointly attack a French stack.
Prussia moves first moving the entire Prussian army into the area with the French.
The Prussian Land Movement Phase ends.
Hmm, how does the program know if there should be a combat or not? Even the Prussia player does not know for certain - maybe the Austria player decides not to more there despite having promised to.

Thus all combats need to wait till after all MPs in the combined block have moved.

[Marshall Ellis]

Neverman:
 
That would be close to how it would have to be done.
The problem here would be who controls what in combat?
Who controls the battles (Chits, casualties, etc) that ALL or some of the combined MPs are involved with?
Would it be that last ally?

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
The problem here would be who controls what in combat?
Who controls the battles (Chits, casualties, etc) that ALL or some of the combined MPs are involved with?
Would it be that last ally?

Lets say that Pru, Aus and Rus have moved together in that order.
Once the movement phase of all 3 is done the game moves to the land combat phase.

First it gives control to Russia - who conducts all combats where only Russia units are present as well as all combats where a Russian leader is the commander of the stack.
Then it gives control to Austria - who does similarly.
Finally it gives control to Prussia - who does similarly plus conducts any remaining battles (anywhere that no leader is
present yet several nations are stacked).

[NeverMan]

Jan:

Good point, well then, you could just wait until they are all (only the combined MPs, the un-combined MPs could go as they go now) done (like you said) and then go one by one.

Marshall:

Going off of the point above, the "controller" of the combat is then the MP who has 1) Leader present 2) Most Corps there, or if there are two leaders from two different MPs, then the leader with the most corps present. I think this is a better option than just giving the "last" guy control of all the combined battles, and I think it makes more sense. The Land Combat sequence could then follow the "combined" MPs land movement phase.

[no_dice]

Hmm, wish list time?

1) Alternate great powers rules.
2) More Kingdoms. Italy
3) Ability to choose which provinces to comprise a kingdom.

ie Don't force powers to add all the polish provinces they own to Poland when it's created. It's a great dis-incentive to the Russian and Prussian players to create Poland. (Look at what provinces Russia histocally added when it created the Kingdom of Poland after 1815. Why would Prussia add Magdeburg to the Confederation of the Rhine - AK the German Empire - when it was already part of their home turf.)

Some kind of screen where you can select provinces (unavailable ones could be greyed out) when a Kingdom is created would do the trick and hopefully wouldn't be difficult to code.

4) Can you set the length of time for lent corps/leaders to be borrowed to somthing other other than a turn by turn basis (ie quarterly). Perhaps leave players the ability to withdraw lent corps each turn though..

5) Add districts to existing countries on a limited basis (ie give Norway to Sweden or add newly conquered provinces to Poland.)

Cheers!

no dice

"Don't try this at home kids, I'm a trained professional!"

[Minedog]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Minedog:

Changing the move order does not do it. Changing the move order is easy, you're right BUT what about combat? There would still be a combat phase at the end of EACH land phase thus you're not allowing allies to attack together. Delaying combat until the end of certain sequences is a problem. I would have to allow multiple MPs' forces to trigger combat in one MP's combat phase. This is where it gets tricky.
Again, I would ask what shortcomings does the loaned corps function have that I could change to make it better?

I understand it is tricky, made more so by the wandering French and British move cycle position, BUT this is the key and cornerstone feature of the multiplayer game. Combined movement means these major powers are treated as one movement phase, or more practically, one movement phase of multiple parts. Supply and battle are not determined until the end of the total parts of the movement phase.

Talking here mainly from experience with the boardgame rather than the computer game, a combined move is a sequence of nations moving, so for example in a Russian, Austrian & Prussian alliance combined move, the nations move in order (and in the boardgame that is any sequence chosen, eg. Prussia, then Russian then Austria), then there is a supply step, then there is a battle step.

So there are three processes here
1. determining the movement order in the combined move step
2. determining supply at the end of the total combined movement
3. determining battle command.

From a non-programmer point of view;
Step 1 comprises a lengthy list of turn sequence options, possibly made selective by determining Combined movement in the Diplomacy phase. If major powers can be grouped, the group position is determined by the last moving major power in the Phase, and it should then be possible to determine the group movement order in the start of Land and Naval Phase of the last moving Major Power. Taking the example forward, Russian, Austrian and Prussian land units all move in the Prussian Land step. They could then chose to move Prussia, Russia, Austria.

Step 2 requires a major power actually actively paying corps supply. This runs at odds with the computer game procedure of paying supply by default. Fundamentally I think active paying of supply (and default forage) is a better solution both for later integration with the optional depot limits rule, and I suspect it would bring focus to the AI. So continuing the example, Prussia pays to supply some corps, then Russia, then Austria. This might be expedited by allowing depots to be set to allow other major powers to use them for supply.

Step 3. Actually the easiest of the three. Command of the battle goes to the highest leader of the major power with the most corps, unless they have no leader. Losses are allocated proportionally, with the commander determining the odd losses. So for example, a battle with 4 Prussian, 3 Austrian and 2 Russian corps and an Austrian and Russian leader, the Austrian leader is in command and runs the battle for all purposes. Assuming the corps are of equal size, 4/9ths of the casualties are Prussian, 3/9th Austrian and 2/9th Russian.

Strictly speaking, in EiA boardgame terms, loaned corps are something taken as a peace condition in a surrender, and they are returned to their owner once 50% of the corps are lost through any means. Over the years there have been many abuses of this "loan", transporting them out to sea, or marooning them on islands. Marching them into the desert etc. Ergo, as a player, I would never loan my corps or fleets to another player. About the only advantage I could see in loaned corps would be for the AI to turn over control to an allied major power, mainly because the AI lacks any tactical or strategic focus.

This is a LOT of reprogramming I suspect, BUT it is the fundamental basis of EiA. The sequence of play is pretty much where every rule set begins, and if that fails, so does the intent of many other subsequent rules. Without combined movement there is so much lost from the game IMHO as to make it a French walkover, and loses much of the diplomatic aspects of the game.

[bresh]

Step 3. Actually the easiest of the three. Command of the battle goes to the highest leader of the major power with the most corps, unless they have no leader. Losses are allocated proportionally, with the commander determining the odd losses. So for example, a battle with 4 Prussian, 3 Austrian and 2 Russian corps and an Austrian and Russian leader, the Austrian leader is in command and runs the battle for all purposes. Assuming the corps are of equal size, 4/9ths of the casualties are Prussian, 3/9th Austrian and 2/9th Rus

I think this is reference to following EIA-rules:
10.6.1.1 CHOOSING OR DETERMINING A COMMANDER: If there is only one leader present on a side at a combat, that leader automatically commands. Otherwise, the commander is determined as follows:
10.6.1.1.1 Commanders For Allied Armies: If several leaders are present on the same side at a combat then the leader commanding the whole army must be a leader of the major power with the greatest number of corps present. If there are equal greatest numbers, the major power providing the leader may be chosen by the controlling players by mutual agreement from among those major powers or by competitive unmodified die rolls.
10.6.1.1.2 Commanders Among Other Leaders: If there are several leaders from the one major power, the leader with the highest seniority rating is chosen. "A" is a senior rating to "B" is a senior rating to "C" is a senior rating to "D" If there is more than one leader of the same highest seniority rating then the controlling player may choose which leader to use.



Note this, might be bit harder to code :
10.6.1.1.3 Reinforcing Leaders Taking Command: If a reinforcing leader arrives during a combat, it takes command only if from the same major power as the present commander and has a higher seniority rating or if there is currently no leader.

Kind Regards
Bresh

[Minedog]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Note this, might be bit harder to code :
10.6.1.1.3 Reinforcing Leaders Taking Command: If a reinforcing leader arrives during a combat, it takes command only if from the same major power as the present commander and has a higher seniority rating or if there is currently no leader.

I think the functionality of a reinforcing leader taking command is already programmed, alibi not for an allied force. I guess theoretically this means the control of the battle should pass to another player, but realistically and logistically it would be better if the original controller finished the battle day at least.

[Marshall Ellis]

Correct, the reinforcing leader taking command should already be there???
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Correct, the reinforcing leader taking command should already be there???

Yes for one MP force.
If a reinforcing force of the same MP, arrives with a leader of higher senior ranking/or same and better it works fine now.

But how does it work if another MP reinforces and his leader is "senior"/"same but better leader" in ranking to the commanding leader ?

In EIA the commanding leader would stay in command.

Kind Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

Technically right now, I don't think you could pull in another MP leader???
I'll have to try this...