Matrix Games Forums

-------"no, because when you are planning your orders i strat. mode, the unit doesn't actually move before the turn's resolution phase. So, before to press "end turn button" you theoritically still have time to cancell the order. no ?
and anyway, gameplay would be much better with this button (it's not a RTS !!!) until validated (by "end turn" it should be possible to change orders."-------


Absolutely, if you, by accident(as i did), press ok before you have set the conditions of the long awaited surrender of Austria, you can nothing but roll your eyes[8|][:-][:-][:-][:-] in the afterlife when you look back cause that is devastating[X(][X(][X(][X(] to say the least.

ORIGINAL: Zan

I want to control the world.Anyone else?Longer game play plz.

Longer? Have you ever played a game with 5000 gp? It seems to me long enough [:'(]

Sometimes the ego can benefit from complete and total domination. I've played several games where it allows you to continue and take everything after you've already "won". That doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. When someone accumulates the glory to win, why not have the game state the victory but then allow an option box to end or continue on? It is easy to add, it doesn't hurt anything and some people (myself included at times) would likely enjoy just messing around as Europe's big bully.

Another thought to make in game play easier - When choosing advances there is no information regarding the effects of your options and you must either pull out the manual or make a semi-random selection. Since you must click on your choice and then hit an "OK" button, why not display the effects of a choice in a small box on the right when it is selected. That way we can click on each and see what they do and eventually hit "OK" when we find the one that we want.

ORIGINAL: jchastain

When someone accumulates the glory to win, why not have the game state the victory but then allow an option box to end or continue on?

it's already in this way.. you can play after the "end" of the campaign..

ORIGINAL: Franz von G

ORIGINAL: jchastain

When someone accumulates the glory to win, why not have the game state the victory but then allow an option box to end or continue on?

it's already in this way.. you can play after the "end" of the campaign..

Doh! Once again I am caught commenting on something before getting actual experience. When someone suggested longer games, I assumed this wasn't the case. Thanks for correcting me.

[quote]ORIGINAL: Zan

Also an option to speed up or slow down battles.I like to look at the casualty numbers, but find they disappear too quickly.


Zan, you can already do this. The green "Delay" bar at the bottom of the screen during tactical battles can be adjusted to slow things down. My one piece of advice to you and everyone else is that if you decide to hit "Q" and do a quick-resolve on the battle you first lower the delay setting to zero, since otherwise it will take extra time to resolve the battle.

Don't know if this has bee brought up - change the scrolling of the map. Acouple short jerks then zoooom across the continent makes for a lot of frustration. The jump map helps but is not good enough to get exactly where I want to be on the map.[:-]

Zan, you can already do this. The green "Delay" bar at the bottom of the screen during tactical battles can be adjusted to slow things down. My one piece of advice to you and everyone else is that if you decide to hit "Q" and do a quick-resolve on the battle you first lower the delay setting to zero, since otherwise it will take extra time to resolve the battle.

Yeah, the manual is completely wrong about the function of the Delay bar. Sorry! Listen to Gil [:)]

Another interface point - if the little circle icon that appears when a supply cason is active and you hold the cursor over a unit would include the current supply level of the unit (just put the number in the middle of the little circle or put dots or shade the circle or just do something to indicate current supply level), that would be helpful.

A couple of small things I'd like to see :

- Either a zoom out function on the strategic map, or the option to play in a higher resolution. Preferably both!

- Change the colour of the messages that appear at the bottom of the screen during the execution phase on the strategic map. A white message doesn't show up well enough on the pale map background. A very, very minor point I know, but I must have played about 20 turns of my first game before I even realised those messages were there...[:o]

[:D][:D]

Time Duration:

I would like each game turn to be only one week. Giving the player a more realistic turn option or a better tactical interface.

I notice that many enemy navies move there fleets back and forth between harbors and different sea zones during the same turn. My fleets get only one move in one direction.
Does any one know how to move your naval units back and forth, into and out of a harbor or sea zone on a single turn?

Thanks

After two days of pissing off my wife, who can not seem to understand the importance of my Italian strategy....great game! Some initial thoughts:

- Clearer economics. I like the variability in the results but I would like to be able to make some reasonable assumptions plus or minus a percentage, if you know what I mean. I do not want complete control nor a game where I am a clerk, determining the number of shoelaces I need to buy. On this level, the abstraction of the economics of the game are just right (imo), just need to be a little clearer, that's all.

- Tactial battles. Would like to see a little more space between the opposing forces, not much more just a little. Would like the opportunity to use my light cav. As it stands now they have little practical game use (although they may affect pursuit totals in the quick battles - I don't know) and I don't produce them.

- Survivability(?) of nations and Conquer the World. I would like to see defeated nations be able to survive more - Austria surrended three times and still was a viable nation, playing the vital, pivot role in 1813. Not sure how this can be accomplished - maybe the victorious nation should be penalized for too harsh a peace settlement in terms of GP? That is, it should be in the interest of a player to render another nation to servititude. I like the wastage idea, which inhibits the ability to conquer the world and I even think it (and other inhibiting ideas like it) should be increased. I don't care for "steamroller" games but prefer a game with midgame and endgame challenges. Perhaps dominance rather than conquering should be the main goal.

ORIGINAL: Jordan
After two days of pissing off my wife...

WOW! Does that ever hit close to home. [8|]

ORIGINAL: Jordan
- Clearer economics. I like the variability in the results but I would like to be able to make some reasonable assumptions plus or minus a percentage, if you know what I mean. I do not want complete control nor a game where I am a clerk, determining the number of shoelaces I need to buy. On this level, the abstraction of the economics of the game are just right (imo), just need to be a little clearer, that's all.

I agree, though if you have any detailed suggestions of specifically what you might add, that would likely be more helpful. I have suggested adding additional information to various boxes that I think would be helpful, especially to beginning players. But this is a case where I think they really benefit from specifics such as "Add information X to display Y".

ORIGINAL: Jordan
- Tactial battles. Would like to see a little more space between the opposing forces, not much more just a little. Would like the opportunity to use my light cav. As it stands now they have little practical game use (although they may affect pursuit totals in the quick battles - I don't know) and I don't produce them.

Agree. But as you say, just a bit. The battles that start on the far end of the current range are just about right. The right answer might be to just reduce the variability a bit be removing the half of the current range that is closest.

ORIGINAL: Jordan
- Survivability(?) of nations and Conquer the World. I would like to see defeated nations be able to survive more - Austria surrended three times and still was a viable nation, playing the vital, pivot role in 1813. Not sure how this can be accomplished - maybe the victorious nation should be penalized for too harsh a peace settlement in terms of GP? That is, it should be in the interest of a player to render another nation to servititude. I like the wastage idea, which inhibits the ability to conquer the world and I even think it (and other inhibiting ideas like it) should be increased. I don't care for "steamroller" games but prefer a game with midgame and endgame challenges. Perhaps dominance rather than conquering should be the main goal.

I actually haven't seen a problem here myself. Nations surrender and lose a province and some glory but are generally far from crippled. I would disagree about increasing waste. I think the game strikes a very nice balance now and allows some growth without allowing it to become a "grab everything you can" type game. I also suspect that by tightening the rules around expansion, you are more likely to narrow the appeal of the game instead of broadening it.

Just my two cents worth.

LOVE THE GAME!

So far I have hardly played past the first 5 months....but here are my ideas, take 'em, leave 'em, etc.:

Armies are wandering all over the map too well. How the hell are Austrians building depots in France when they have not invaded yet? This allows them to march w/o attrition across France! This is a MAJOR issue IMHO.

More randomness on fleet and army encounters.....just because two fleets are in the Bay of Biscay, does not mean they will spot each other.....same with armies, though I guess the avoid battle aspects plays into this.

As noted, economics are a headache.....I like some level of unknowns, but too much now -- concur with some effort at simplification.

I like the battles......diplomacy is good so far, though I have not played enough to get deep into it.

The minimum victory points from a surrender is currently 5,000. I'm thinking of lowering it to 3,500 (where it was for a long time) or maybe 4,000. As getting home provinces in TOS (terms of surrender) cost 2,500, making the minimum less than 5,000 would go a long way toward weakening the effects of victory (in most cases...)

We're also toying with the idea of making provinces with high enough levels of culture and/or courts unable to be ceded via the Cede Province clause. Culture is the weakest Development at present (though it is useful in getting more military upgrades once you've maxed out barracks, and has some small glory and NML value) and this might help make Culture more useful and help keep nations from losing core provinces, which sometimes seems a bit silly.

Comments?


Eric

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
The minimum victory points from a surrender is currently 5,000. I'm thinking of lowering it to 3,500 (where it was for a long time) or maybe 4,000. As getting home provinces in TOS (terms of surrender) cost 2,500, making the minimum less than 5,000 would go a long way toward weakening the effects of victory (in most cases...)

We're also toying with the idea of making provinces with high enough levels of culture and/or courts unable to be ceded via the Cede Province clause. Culture is the weakest Development at present (though it is useful in getting more military upgrades once you've maxed out barracks, and has some small glory and NML value) and this might help make Culture more useful and help keep nations from losing core provinces, which sometimes seems a bit silly.

Comments?

Eric

Perhaps blend your two ideas. Make the cost of ceding a province based upon the culture level. In fact, I might even make it something like:

The victory point cost for ceding a province = ( 3 * culture + courts) * 200 ( + 1000 if a home province )

The numbers are examples and would abviously need to be tweaked a bit, but you get the idea.

ORIGINAL: Jonny_B

I notice that many enemy navies move there fleets back and forth between harbors and different sea zones during the same turn. My fleets get only one move in one direction.
Does any one know how to move your naval units back and forth, into and out of a harbor or sea zone on a single turn?

Issue two distinct move orders. The 'm' key gives a move order without de-selecting the unit. Or just select it again after issuing the first order.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

We're also toying with the idea of making provinces with high enough levels of culture and/or courts unable to be ceded via the Cede Province clause.

That'sa good idea - it would prevent the seemingly regular event from occurring where Austria cedes Austria to Spain upon the first surrender.

How the hell are Austrians building depots in France when they have not invaded yet? This allows them to march w/o attrition across France!

That is correct. We have considered modifying this, and will continue to consider modifications.

More randomness on fleet and army encounters.....just because two fleets are in the Bay of Biscay, does not mean they will spot each other.....same with armies, though I guess the avoid battle aspects plays into this.

Exactly. Both fleets can avoid each other (and if only one is seeking battle, there is a chance they will still not meet.)