Re-thinking the Placement of minors with one or two factors

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Post Reply
Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

Re-thinking the Placement of minors with one or two factors

Post by Dancing Bear »

There is perhaps nothing more annoying than having to do a reinforcement phase only to place the troops of minor who has only one or two factors, except perhaps waiting for another player to do the same thing. Placement of minors is a drag on the game during the first year. Previously we had discussed having the game automatically place these small minors (i.e. those without corps) upon a DOW with pre-set orders. The idea was considered, but put on hold because it would be difficult to program.

However, I have thought of a better way of doing this. Why not have all the minors with one or two infantry garrisons (no corps or fleets) start on the map right at the beginning of the game as part of the set up scenario? It is not like there is any choice in their placement; they all go in the capital. This way when a player gains control of a minor, there are no reinforcements to add, and this phase can be skipped. The garrisons would all be given default orders to surrender when breached (a realistic scenario for a minor without any corps fighting a major power), or perhaps to let the AI decide, which can be changed during the land phase by the control power, should that minor survive the first round.

What do you think? All the tiny minors are very time consuming, and this is likely the reason they do not appear in the original EIA (besides the fact that no two bit minor would offer to fight a major power). The first year of the game is very slow, a good part because of silly interruptions in game flow like this. This also should be straight forward to do as it only requires a change to the scenario set up file, and likely does not require any changes to code.
User avatar
Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: East Coast

RE: Re-thinking the Placement of minors with one or two factors

Post by Mardonius »

I like the idea.
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
User avatar
MarshallEllis
Posts: 5632
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Re-thinking the Placement of minors with one or two factors

Post by MarshallEllis »

Well? That sounds reasonable. I don't think the auto setup code would be too tough? This would be for all minors without corps?

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Dancing Bear
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:16 pm

RE: Re-thinking the Placement of minors with one or two factors

Post by Dancing Bear »

Well, the auto set-up code would be good for games that have just started. But after the first year, pretty much allt he minors are gone, and you don't need to the auto-setup code after the first year.

I'll leave it up to you, but I thought it would be easier to change the set up scenario.

I would do it for all minors without corps, plus Georgia, which I think has a 4 infantry garrison. 4 infantry is enough to make a fight of it, so the controlling major power might not want them to surrender on breach or have the AI select their defensive posture.
User avatar
obsidiandrag
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:02 am
Location: Florida, USA

RE: Re-thinking the Placement of minors with one or two factors

Post by obsidiandrag »

Are battle files exchanged for garrison combat?
 
Since the attacker has the choices and the defender has a pretty set cut and dry deal I would not think so but never got that far it the PBEM games i played...
 
If there are no files transfered for the minor garrisons, the computer could even fight it for you rather than surrender outright this way (since there are no pp losses) the defender would at least have a chance of holding out even on a breach rather than just throwing the hands up.  For the reinforcements, I am more for the auto setup after they are declared on (running each reinforcement phase for declared on minors during that diplomacy phase) than for the starting at the begining of the game with all the minors already having garrisons.. this and I would think the second would have some issues with the current system of them dissappearing after the declaration anyway.
 
This way, in theory if player A declared on a minor, player B gained control but did not have to setup for them if they did not have corps, and did not have to do anything during the assualt, breach, and eventual conquest - except sit there and enjoy the +1 pp while it lasted (or enjoy the occasional lapse of war or enemy foraging to death etc..)  They only have to do something for it on econ based on current situation. 
 
This would make it easier during the game by skipping alot of the reinforcement steps that show up as conquest continues in Germany and southern Russia and automatically fighting and taking the losses on the attackers land combat phase would make it pretty streamlined.
 
OD
 
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”