Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Arsan

You might have heard about Boston 1775 siege for example [;)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Boston
No need to go to WW2 to look for examples of need to blockade a port to effectively siege...

Another WIA era example: Louisbourg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Louisbourg_(1758)

I'm not saying it's not possible for supplies and replacements to pass, i am saying since there's no safety control on the minimum size of a force required to siege a settlement this development choice leaves no solution but to exclude supply and reinforcements from all besieged structures regardless of the presence of a port.

It looks to me the best solution is to add such check adding a minimum requirement of units (or men) to siege a structure according to its level. When in presence of a port, more units would be required to also achieve the blockade by land (unless you blockade from the sea of course so it's 1 check for ordinary settlements and 2 checks for settlements with ports).

Another important achievement of such control would be that the party inside the unbesieged structure, (control 1 or 1+1 not beaten by manpower), would be allowed to get out of the structure and into the region, handle the posture buttons changing the MC in the zone and actually react to a "siege attempt" without need of assistance from rescue parties. This thing would definitely help the AI fight better especially since it's still incapable of real sea operations and solve once and for all the problem that 100 men can siege effectively against 100.000 at present time.

There are hundreds of settlements scattered on the map and the problem is not just port-related. This choice was illogical but it's never too late to change it. Actually i'd say it's quite time to do something about the sieges.

Anyway...as i said, let's see this new prototype and hope at least the problem can be reduced but i think without this double check it can never be eliminated unless someone else has a better idea in merit, in which case i'd love to hear it.

if 100 men sieges against 100.000 at present time, the besieged will wipe out the besieging force at will, ending the siege.[8|]

BTW,

The Perquot scenario is really out of place in the WIA game. Its pretty shallow scenario anyway. If someone doesn't like it per se. Then just delete it. Out of sight -- out of mind. [:)]

Even, with BoA, once in a great while I while go back a play on of the small scenarios. But for the main part, I really only play 1755, 1775, 1813, and my version of 1778.

ORIGINAL: GShock

Another important achievement of such control would be that the party inside the unbesieged structure, (control 1 or 1+1 not beaten by manpower), would be allowed to get out of the structure and into the region, handle the posture buttons changing the MC in the zone and actually react to a "siege attempt" without need of assistance from rescue parties. This thing would definitely help the AI fight better especially since it's still incapable of real sea operations and solve once and for all the problem that 100 men can siege effectively against 100.000 at present time.

Don't you know that the force under siege can be just dragged outside the structure and into the same region anytime you like and with an offensive posture will attack and try to expel the besiegers?? [&:]
It's been like this since BoA. 1.0 three years ago for what i know.[;)]
No need to wait for a relief force. The sally button is just to coordinate the attack from the units inside the structure with the arrival to the region of an relieve force, so both attack the besieger together.

ORIGINAL: Stwa

BTW,

The Perquot scenario is really out of place in the WIA game. Its pretty shallow scenario anyway. If someone doesn't like it per se. Then just delete it. Out of sight -- out of mind. [:)]

Even, with BoA, once in a great while I while go back a play on of the small scenarios. But for the main part, I really only play 1755, 1775, 1813, and my version of 1778.

Eh? Wars in America? [&:]

Pequot War.
Fought in America

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Blueprint
And I didn't known Mantua is a sea harbour....There's really a trouble with your examples because they are always out of context.

If we had to call bugs errors in your posts, I fear we would conclude the situation to be beyond any fixing hope...

Mantua is and was a river port on Mincio.
Austrian used flatboats to resupply their besieged garrison night-time.

ORIGINAL: lodilefty

ORIGINAL: Stwa

BTW,

The Perquot scenario is really out of place in the WIA game. Its pretty shallow scenario anyway. If someone doesn't like it per se. Then just delete it. Out of sight -- out of mind. [:)]

Even, with BoA, once in a great while I while go back a play on of the small scenarios. But for the main part, I really only play 1755, 1775, 1813, and my version of 1778.

Eh? Wars in America? [&:]

Pequot War.
Fought in America

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion.[:)]

Lodi, I mean 17th Century stuff just ripped into a game that was really ment for 18th Century. For that matter, you didn't include any Conquistador stuff, right? In a way that was Wars in America as well. Plus, I don't think there are any real graphics for this very early era, maybe I missed em.

ORIGINAL: JastaV

Is so hard to catch out a good AI?

...

Is so hard to develop an efficient AI for strategy games?

Apparently, for some games, for some scenarios, the answers are: yes, and yes.

When I am disappointed with the AI--not all the time, just some of the time; not just for AGEOD games, but for games from any publisher--my solution is:

Hot-seat Solitaire!

I've been in the war gaming hobby for 45+ years. Years ago, when the hobby was even more obscure, when it was a major hassle to coordinate extended play sessions with other like-minded players (few in number; widely dispersed, most likely interested in a different game and/or historical period), I developed the habit of playing 99% of my games solitaire. It's a habit that has sustained me through most of my game playing life.

The main thing you give up is Fog of War, but you can fake this. "House" (mind) rules.

When I am disappointed with the AI, my response is not to dump the game, much less to denigrate the author/publisher. It is simply to "play" the "game" differently. Against myself. (PBEM? Not for me. I don't need to explain why--again. I've got my reasons. Don't ask.)

Hot-seat solitaire. Works for me!

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: JastaV

Is so hard to catch out a good AI?

...

Is so hard to develop an efficient AI for strategy games?

Apparently, for some games, for some scenarios, the answers are: yes, and yes.

When I am disappointed with the AI--not all the time, just some of the time; not just for AGEOD games, but for games from any publisher--my solution is:

Hot-seat Solitaire!

I've been in the war gaming hobby for 45+ years. Years ago, when the hobby was even more obscure, when it was a major hassle to coordinate extended play sessions with other like-minded players (few in number; widely dispersed, most likely interested in a different game and/or historical period), I developed the habit of playing 99% of my games solitaire. It's a habit that has sustained me through most of my game playing life.

The main thing you give up is Fog of War, but you can fake this. "House" (mind) rules.

When I am disappointed with the AI, my response is not to dump the game, much less to denigrate the author/publisher. It is simply to "play" the "game" differently. Against myself. (PBEM? Not for me. I don't need to explain why--again. I've got my reasons. Don't ask.)

Hot-seat solitaire. Works for me!

From an old boargamer, (but not as old as you) to an old boardgamer: I know that practice and I spent so many times after it !
But I moved from the board to PC just for seeking an opponent.
Then, going after your suggestion, many gamers will stop buying PC games...... guess it will not greately help authors/publishers.

Well it appears that according to a thread message in last January 2008, the besieged force is actually able to lift the siege by sallying out without the help of a rescue party (+ sortie button). It was fun to read that at that point in time, and so much past the release, several gurus of the game had no idea of how actually the procedure worked and if it was at all possible. Me myself, as you may have noticed, knew nothing about this.

So actually Clov...ehm "Blueprint" is is right. Perhaps it might be a good idea to have the DEVs prepare a server for RSS news and mailing newsletter so that when rules change all of those who can't read the forums everyday (and take notes of the changes applied by 2957239 patches per year) can still play knowing what the rules and available choices are.

Source: http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65621

Meanwhile, and reconnecting to the "logical choice of allowing replacements and reinforcements even during a siege"

I have explained that since the game doesn't check for manpower even 100 men can siege a structure with 100.000 inside and luckily "blueprint" is right, that force would be blown away by the defenders sallying. Still, in the meanwhile defenders would be under siege till next turn's resolution phase while the structure produces reinforcements and gives replacements to the besieged party.

Some are really convinced that the blockade would stop this from happening...so this choice is WAD (it means that in absence of a port, any depot city will not only produce supplies but also give replacements to the besieged party while the besiegers starve and die of cold)...so I have taken 5 minutes to search a bit ... and i found...


I have several line replacements, just sitting there, but my depleted units are not filling up. Why?
A unit needs to be in either a depot, harbor, or a level 2 city (not besieged) in order to draw replacements. Note also that partisans and irregulars can regain hits for free if a region is very loyal. 
Source: http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/FAQ#I_hav ... up._Why.3F

It appears to me the text specifies in order to receive replacements, the city must not be besieged and there's no mention about blockading ports.

Really, i can't make much sense of your post (no matter how big you make the fonts)... [&:]
what do you mean?? That you has been complaining about a non existing bug for a month?? [8|]

About the breaking siege method: its not rocket science, just the core base of AGEOD games system: drag&drop, put stacks inside or outside structures, chose a posture... [:)]
It makes perfect sense: you wanna attack somebody (the besiegers in this case)??: just drag and drop your stack to the same place they are and select an offensive posture. Like in any other case [8D]
It's nothing new. IIRC i've been doing this since BoA back on 2006.

I knew i had to write it bigger for you to really get it, Arsan. [:)]



I have several line replacements, just sitting there, but my depleted units are not filling up. Why?

A unit needs to be in either a depot, harbor, or a level 2 city (not besieged) in order to draw replacements. Note also that partisans and irregulars can regain hits for free if a region is very loyal.

All these petty complaints are needless criticisms and serve only to make folks ignore certain forumers. This campaign of hatred is pointless, as the main complaintants are narrowed to two gamers who refuse to post on the AGEOD forum. Please cease these attacks now.

ORIGINAL: GShock

I knew i had to write it bigger for you to really get it, Arsan. [:)]



I have several line replacements, just sitting there, but my depleted units are not filling up. Why?

A unit needs to be in either a depot, harbor, or a level 2 city (not besieged) in order to draw replacements. Note also that partisans and irregulars can regain hits for free if a region is very loyal.

I see... it seems i got it right the first time:
You have been rambling and whining for a month because besieged units can recover strength but hey!, after actually checking it you just discovered this is not happening [8|]
For a change, maybe you should post a "Sorry, AGEOD. I was wrong" message on big fonts [:)]

ORIGINAL: GShock

Well it appears that according to a thread message in last January 2008, the besieged force is actually able to lift the siege by sallying out without the help of a rescue party (+ sortie button). It was fun to read that at that point in time, and so much past the release, several gurus of the game had no idea of how actually the procedure worked and if it was at all possible. Me myself, as you may have noticed, knew nothing about this.

So actually Clov...ehm "Blueprint" is is right. Perhaps it might be a good idea to have the DEVs prepare a server for RSS news and mailing newsletter so that when rules change all of those who can't read the forums everyday (and take notes of the changes applied by 2957239 patches per year) can still play knowing what the rules and available choices are.

Source: http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65621

Great. Really.Even when you're wrong AGEOD is guilty. I begin to think your favored Confederate General is Bragg.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND EVIL AGEOD? SHAME ON YOU TO CREATE TOO SUBTLE GAMES FOR GSHOCK. HE'S A CONSUMER. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO GET SIMPLER RULES OR EXPLAINED IN VERY LARGE CHARACTERS ( to be sure he will not name bug a feature, or vice-versa, depending of his mood).

A tool kit to design own map and units at will.
The full list of available codes/commands to be edited.
Then, the program exe file.
 
That could be an idea for next title to be published!
 
Without irony it could be a winning marketing strategy.......
Customers will have chance to built own game and own scenarios!
 
I'd buy it for sure!

It's useless to debate with people who are paid to say that the sun sheds no light, JastaV.
Sorry but am not gonna play the game till the sieges are not working as they should.

ORIGINAL: GShock

It's useless to debate with people who are paid to say that the sun sheds no light, JastaV.
Sorry but am not gonna play the game till the sieges are not working as they should.

Priceless! [&o][:D]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

All these petty complaints are needless criticisms and serve only to make folks ignore certain forumers. This campaign of hatred is pointless, as the main complaintants are narrowed to two gamers who refuse to post on the AGEOD forum. Please cease these attacks now.

From my perspective, it looks like any hate (if it is hate) is running in both directions in this thread.

Stwa, mine is the distinct point of view of a CUSTOMER who could never play this game till the end due to a bug.

New game, bug, report, end of game, new patch. New game, bug, report, end of game, new patch. It is a loop.

In a game/scenario there's no opponent,
in another there's no contest,
in another there's a move bug where transport moves and cargo stays,
in another the AI doesn't attack,
in another the distant unload doesn't work,
in another the replacements do not arrive,
in another can't build a fort even though i have supplies and arty,
in another the AI is not defending its objectives,
in another ships dont get repaired,
in another a stack is said to arrive somewhere and it doesn't arrive at all,
in another, i siege the settlement, the besieged become stronger and i become weaker,
in another the game crashes, asks me to write report and the application opening outlook express crashes...

It was my choice to leave the AgeOD betas, that's why i have no hate for anyone and no regrets...but the bugs are there, oh yes they are.