1.02j feedback

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen




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

Bresh, I have gone back and corrected my post. I'm sorry I made a mistake. I didn't mean to be confusing, I must be off today. Notice the BOLD in my correction. Yes, you are correct.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Well as im sure we can agree, we have different opinions on how this should be ruled

Thats why i suggested it be variable option, since there are different schools of how people played it.
I seem to remember reading an article that describes how i think it was done. But im sure its not unthinkable that others played in your way.

Regards
Bresh

[Grognot]

Sure.  I'm just noting that there's more basic reasons for stacking than PP, like not getting slaughtered on the battlefield.  At least for people that don't want to repeat historical mistakes.  *shrug*  So it's going to happen if players like to win, unless the PP distribution system is sufficiently perverse to actually punish stackers harder than France smacks non-stackers (unlikely).

More concerned to make sure that the mechanics actually work, like all corps actually show up, and how the game resolves the presence of corps that aren't at war with all the attackers (forced retreat in the AH version, IIRC.  I don't recall this being documented in the EiANW manual, so it -might- implement the same rule, but I haven't tested it.)

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:
 
I'm flexible here but I don't want to screw the game balance up.
 
I personally like the winners get the same pp. Losers share the loss based on force composition rounding up! This could help serve the dual purpose of AI alliances paying off in pps. Nobody getting more than 3pp (Not counting leader bonuses).
 
Anybody second this?
 
 

[dodod]

I second this!
as long as there is some system in place...

[eske]

I second too!

Full PP to all MP winners. Only loss of PP for own corps participating.

Ken Clark's post in the other thread shows the balance in France vs. coalition wars
in the original EiA rules is pretty good.

Don't make extra options on this for my sake...

/Eske

[NeverMan]

I second it, or third it, or fourth it, whichever post this is.

[bresh]

Dont think i need to point up my support for it when it follows how i think they rules where.
 
Regards
Bresh

[j-s]

I have some problems with diplomacy. I have tried to loan corps from AI and it won't work. When you select any of my allies corps and try to get diplomacy window open, it won't open. Then I have to deselect corps and try again. Then it works, but tells that "no corps selected" or something like that.

And then another guestion: How you can create a depot to besieged corps via naval supply? I play GB and I have my corps besieged in constantinople. I have a depot & fleet in London and some fleets in Constantinople. Is it possible to build a "besieged supply" inside the city as in original rules?

[obsidiandrag]

Actually I have one from K that I am not sure but believe has been around a while...  Here is the picture, Pommerania is listed as 1$/1MP below but 0/0 above which is it supposed to be?
 

[obsidiandrag]

Here is the screen shot

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Actually I have one from K that I am not sure but believe has been around a while...  Here is the picture, Pommerania is listed as 1$/1MP below but 0/0 above which is it supposed to be?

Yeah weird.

Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

Just checked this out and S Pommerania is actually shown to be a province of Prussia!
This has been logged and will be fixed in 1.03
 
 

[Ashtar]

Hey guys:

I'm flexible here but I don't want to screw the game balance up.

I personally like the winners get the same pp. Losers share the loss based on force composition rounding up! This could help serve the dual purpose of AI alliances paying off in pps. Nobody getting more than 3pp (Not counting leader bonuses).

Anybody second this?

I second it too. And do not forget to correct the Naval Combat pp loss/gain to 1/2 per fleet instead of 1.
Plus, of course, awarding pp also to loaned fleets.