Automatic battles?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

How could you say that when it TOTALLY ELIMINATES battle file swapping???

I just don't like the idea of not knowing wtf is going on. Maybe I'm paranoid.

Let's say you "pre-select" a chit for that corps, are you using ESP to determine how many corps are attacking you and what leaders they are attacking you with?

In all the games so far, combat has not really been a major slowdown factor like I thought it would be.

I'll stand corrected if others agree??? I never would have guessed that but I'm open to correction.

Anybody else use the quick combat option?

Dont know anyone who does use quick combat.
First you loose the intelligence on your opponents corps.
2. one defender chit might be good vs 1 corps, while different ones seem better if the foe is bigger.

Say 2 Turkish feudal Cav, if i fought 1-2 regular infantry corps, i might use one chit, while if it fought a big stack "withdraw" might be wiser.

Kind Regards
Bresh

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

As a compromise suggestion; add "Run as battle file exchange" to the list of "chits" that can
be preset for corp.  If this is selected; then the computer should generate battle files for the
combat whenever that corp is attacked instead of picking the chit.

This is a good idea.

My main complaint was the same as bresh's, you might use different chits for different opponents (based on leader, size, type, country, etc).

[AresMars]

I have to agree with NeverMan, gwheelock and Bresh.  [gwheelocks suggestion was cool]
What is the fun of letting a/the computer fight your battles for you?   [>:]
 
And sometimes, battles are an excellent source of Game Intelligence, Opponent play style information, and opportunities for Diplomacy.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I'll stand corrected if others agree??? I never would have guessed that but I'm open to correction.

Anybody else use the quick combat option?

I'm in partial agreement. I think I would personally prefer to never use quick combat of any kind. But, I could see how some players might like it. It does speed things up, but not dramatically. See my other post in the tech support forum for some ideas on how to speed up combat without loss of integrity in the process.

One problem I see with quick combat is that it opens up the game to a security bug: A person can try a battle, see the results, and then just exit the game. If we are using the house rule that they have to submit their land movement stuff before doing the combats, then at least they can't retract the movement. But, it is trivially easy to retract the results of a battle if all of the "action" occurs on one system: Just hit the "exit program" button and try again.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

As a compromise suggestion; add "Run as battle file exchange" to the list of "chits" that can
be preset for corp.  If this is selected; then the computer should generate battle files for the
combat whenever that corp is attacked instead of picking the chit.

I REALLY like this idea. Basically, it would allow any player (independent of the other players) to choose to have a real battle.

My question would be what happens when one player selects this option, but the other player does not? Does the first player then play with a battle window, but only at the end does the battle file get shipped? If so, this is ripe for the same kind of security breach I mentioned above.

[Jimmer]

And, I hadn't even thought of the intelligence aspects of this.
 
However, I think intelligence ought to be thought through much more than just this. I think it would be really good for every single factor one has fought with or fought against would be noted in a sub-database. If I fight a French corps with 11 factors in it, I want to know that on the following turn, and I want to know where it went (until such moves are disguised by the presence of other corps). This is a HUGE part of the combat stuff that used to be routinely kept by most players (I used to know about every single factor on the board at some points in the board games I played).
 
So, I would lobby for some kind of interface that would keep running tallys on any information I have gained. Once a corps stacks with or separates from a pile, then said information is less valuable. But, the game ought to be able to tell me what happened for the last few months (to my stacks, that is).

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

One problem I see with quick combat is that it opens up the game to a security bug: A person can try a battle, see the results, and then just exit the game. If we are using the house rule that they have to submit their land movement stuff before doing the combats, then at least they can't retract the movement. But, it is trivially easy to retract the results of a battle if all of the "action" occurs on one system: Just hit the "exit program" button and try again.

Isnt this possible with the current battle system anyways? After seeing the "die rolls" can't you just exit the game and reload the turn? I haven't tried this (since cheating defeats the purpose of playing the game to begin with) but if someone has (and I'm sure there are some out there, not that they will come forward with a real game example) please let us know.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

As a compromise suggestion; add "Run as battle file exchange" to the list of "chits" that can
be preset for corp.  If this is selected; then the computer should generate battle files for the
combat whenever that corp is attacked instead of picking the chit.

I REALLY like this idea. Basically, it would allow any player (independent of the other players) to choose to have a real battle.

My question would be what happens when one player selects this option, but the other player does not? Does the first player then play with a battle window, but only at the end does the battle file get shipped? If so, this is ripe for the same kind of security breach I mentioned above.

It would only matter for the defender - the attacker ALWAYS has the ability to select a chit. The reason to leave the preset
chit options as well would be for combats where the defender is putting out blocking corp & knows what is coming at him ( thus
doesn't need the intel info). It still allows for game speedups when fighting trivial combats - either computer-picked or preselected
for those cases; but would do a full normal battle-exchange if the defender wishes it.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Isnt this possible with the current battle system anyways? After seeing the "die rolls" can't you just exit the game and reload the turn? I haven't tried this (since cheating defeats the purpose of playing the game to begin with) but if someone has (and I'm sure there are some out there, not that they will come forward with a real game example) please let us know.

Yeah, I guess you are right.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Isnt this possible with the current battle system anyways? After seeing the "die rolls" can't you just exit the game and reload the turn? I haven't tried this (since cheating defeats the purpose of playing the game to begin with) but if someone has (and I'm sure there are some out there, not that they will come forward with a real game example) please let us know.

Yeah, I guess you are right.

Thinking about it, I'm sure this can be done for chit choice too (if the defender doesn't email his chit choice to someone else first). There are a TON of ways to cheat in this game, although I don't know why someone would want to.

[La Provence]

With this "rule", I lost Davout and all his Corps (25.000 men) in a battle against Prussian !!!
In the adjacent area, I have more than 75.000 men who don't move (no renforcement).
 
The IA choose "Defend" for Davout against 6 or 7 Prussain corps !!! [X(]
(So, at the begining of the campaign Davout and 25000 men as prisoners).
 
Impossibility to give an "intelligent" order to him because this was made during reinforcement and the french move ofen at the end : so the strategic situation is very different.
Are you able to understand that ???? It's a non sense [X(]

[MarshallEllis]

La Provence:
 
Tell me more about this game.
I'm assuming PBEM?
Was it AI that attacked you?
 
 

[La Provence]

It's a PBEM game
No AI, all human.
 
This situation appear a second time with berthier with 1 corps against prussian stack ........
But IA choose Withdraw for Berthier and ... [&o] ........ succeed !!
 
I'm OK for the automatic resolution when an army fight a single corps BUT if the chief of this corps has the possibility to give it an appropriate order !
 

[MarshallEllis]

This should never happen in an all human game???
The AI should only assume control in PBEM games.
I would lvoe to see this in a save if you find this again.
 
 

[La Provence]

ORIGINAL: La Provence


I'm OK for the automatic resolution when an army fight a single corps BUT if the chief of this corps has the possibility to give it an appropriate order after his move !

Sorry, important correction ...

[MarshallEllis]

This still should have been an issue in a non-pbem game. Hot seat should allow both of you guys to fight???
 

[DCWhitworth]

Just to chip in on this. I would like to see battle files eliminated for sieges. They pop up if a corps hides in the city with a garrison and there really isn't much point, all the defender gets to do is select losses which frankly could be done automatically with a simple piece of code.

[MarshallEllis]

We've discussed this before and I don't have a problem with. Anybody else got an opinion?
 
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We've discussed this before and I don't have a problem with. Anybody else got an opinion?

Im fine with this.
Dont know if some "battleinfo" should be displayed in gamelog, so that ppl who request the intelligence dont loose that part.
Im not aware of the importance for them.

Regards
Bresh

[AresMars]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
Just to chip in on this. I would like to see battle files eliminated for sieges. They pop up if a corps hides in the city with a garrison and there really isn't much point, all the defender gets to do is select losses which frankly could be done automatically with a simple piece of code.

Agreed, battle files for seiges are annoying, however, I raise the following point....

Is there a way to identify in which order the seige loses would occur? ie. MP Militia, Minors Inf, MP Inf, MP Arty, MP Grd, Minor Cav, MP Cav..... or some other combination depending on personal preferences or one the situation...?

Also, would this be a global setting or could local settings be issued?

Is this complicating the issue for no real benefit?