France Land Movement Order Announcement

[Jimmer]

Don't do it in 1.06. CONSIDER it for the future, though.

[Mardonius]

Why would you not want to do it Jimmer?
Please be specific lest I will take you out to the woodshed for some schooling.

[bresh]

Mardonius, as not only myself have pointed out, the game is currently heavily unbalanced with many added advantages to France, that they did not have in EIA.

My reason is that your proposed change while "propper EIA", would increase this unbalance.
Fix the described unbalance reasons, and then after I would agree that France should need the "ability" back for balance, but NOT before.

In adition to this, you also need to introduce Naval-reinforcephase, at the current condition GB is penalized, you can not only adjust the game for France and leave out GB.


Regards
Bresh

[Mardonius]

Bresh:

Respectfully, I don't agree with either your conclusion that France is over-powerful (I think GB has the advantage) nor your method of abbrogating any individual improvements that might improve France's position. I suggest that a better means might be found by advocating individual points that you feel favor France too much.

best
Mardonius

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Why would you not want to do it Jimmer?
Please be specific lest I will take you out to the woodshed for some schooling.

Because 1.06 is already late. We don't need more things to muck it up any further.

Software development needs cutoff dates that are NOT violated. Matrix doesn't seem to understand that, and it shows.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Bresh:

Respectfully, I don't agree with either your conclusion that France is over-powerful (I think GB has the advantage) nor your method of abbrogating any individual improvements that might improve France's position. I suggest that a better means might be found by advocating individual points that you feel favor France too much.

best
Mardonius

Mardonius with all respect to.
The list is not a feeling, they are factual.

Like also Jimmer agrees

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out by the second post: France and GB both lost "something" in the transition to EIANW. However, this correction only helps France; the correction makes no difference to GB (or, very little).

Or do you belive these dont affect Fr/GB mostly French benefits in the game, compared to EIA ?

FR+GB advantage: They can not loose their dominant status.
French advantage : Lack of an effective mechanism for combined movement to combat French aggression, and the lack of allies able to
pay supply(using their depots), without needing to lend the corps.
French advantage : Increased French OOB (X - XII Corps increased in strength)
French advantage : Decreased Russia OOB 1-3rd corps and guard corps reduced in strength.
French advantage : Austria 2 less depots.
PR advantage : Increased OOB of GD corps.
AU advantage : Increased OOb of Grenadier corps.

Im not saying France is overpowerfull, but he has gained more benefits than other nations.

The order of setting land/naval movement affects GB as much as France in the current setting, you want to add one advantage to France but leave out the required change to GB-naval pick ? Dont view this only with French-Glasses.

We will now get naval changes in 1.06, as far as i understand, naval-evasion is comming and "cheaper-faster ship build", as far as i can tell, only beta-testers can guess on how this affects the game, but such changes might put back the naval-balance from EIA.

Regards
Bresh

[Mardonius]

Hi Bresh:


I do not disagree with your argument that certain aspects favor the French and though I would have to review the below I am pretty confident that your observations may be correct in each instance. I would exhort you, however, to try and fix these particular issues rather than try and undo another fix that is valid unto itself.

As a follow on point, your list is not comprehensive (which would be impossible anyway, so no finger pointing from me on this) and omits aspects that hurt the French, most grievously the blockade box auto port seizure that allows fleets from the blockade box to automatically move into the port upon seizure of the port by friendly land forces. This, combined with the land order movement revelations mentioned above, really kick France in the loins.

So, my point is: fix each problem in itself; don't stop others from fixing problems because of perceived other issues.

Is that fair and just? I think so.

Best
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Why would you not want to do it Jimmer?
Please be specific lest I will take you out to the woodshed for some schooling.

Because 1.06 is already late. We don't need more things to muck it up any further.

Software development needs cutoff dates that are NOT violated. Matrix doesn't seem to understand that, and it shows.

Hi Jimmer:

Conceptually, I have to agree with you.

But let me ask you something: How hard is it to eliminate a log entry? Should be one line of script and this script omission should have no secondary effects as we are dealing with a text input. Should take about 5 minutes, if one is slow.

I guess I took more woodshed perspective to your CONSIDER remark as this change seems ipso facto meritorious.
So I guess I will see you out back if you still want words.[:)]

best
Madonius

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:
 
We are late with 1.06 so this will not fall into 1.06 at this time. Jimmer is right! We are taking too long on 1.06!
 

[Jimmer]

Marshall, along with that, how about a 1.06b that includes these changes (the ones here and in the other threads). Once 6 stabilizes, these tweaks (Mardonius is right: they aren't much of a change) could be added in a follow-on to 1.06 (not specifically B, but the next letter).
 
Also, if 1.06 proves hard to stabilize, then you might consider adding them in 1.07.
 
I think you should try to get a dozen upgrades a year out, each of which is substantially smaller than what comes out now. Debugging would be much easier, and you could schedule things better, too:
 
Week 1: New code is added (part of this will have occurred in previous months)
Week 2: Code cutoff occurs. Also, true bug fixes can be added, but no other code (even important changes, like this one -- push them to the next month).
Week 3: Only bug fixes to this version's new code can be added.
Week 4: Code is released
 
Week 5: This is the next month. Ignore it, or use it as "make up days".
 
Rinse, lather, repeat.

[Marshall Ellis]

The problem with that Jimmer is that 1.06 will never get official while I'm adding. If anything, I need to push this to 1.07 so as to not stop 1.06
 

[Jimmer]

OK. Stick with the numbering scheme and make it 1.07. But, make 1.07 smaller. No matter how much anybody gripes about it. Unless it's a BUG, don't change it once you are done with the coding phase.