Simultaneous reinforcement, what are we waiting for?

[Dancing Bear]

Well, the Marshall is away this week, so I can’t think of a better time to think up things to add to his to do list for his return.

I want to know if you guys think we should ask for sim reinforcement. We bombarded the Marshall to pieces when this was brought up about a year ago, but I think we were wrong to do so. It takes about 2 days to a week for a PBEM to get through reinforcement. Is it worth the wait, when it could be done in less than a day as sim phase?

The proposal would be to replace the current reinforcement with 2 sim phases, one to add reinforcements, and one where France and GB declare when they will move (will be skippable).

Before we heard quotes like I would rather die than have simultaneous reinforcement, but after a year of playing without it, I think we should ask the question again.

Thoughts, gentlemen?

Yes, I Iike it, or No I don’t, and reasons why.

[bOrIuM]

I believe we didnt talk about it again because the reason is simple: There is an order in Reinf for the same reason there is one in land and naval phase... it is strategic ! No need to argue more than that. I'll never play a game with simultaneous reinf as it will kill a lot of strategy options. Where you will add troops, garisons and leaders will depends where others will do it. It is simple and complete no need to argue more I believe.

[pzgndr]

No need for an argument at all if the suggested sim reinforcement is an OPTION, for some players to consider for faster pbem play at some sacrifice of strategy options. 
 
If real fog of war options are ever implemented in this computer game where MPs do not have unrealistic omnipotent powers, then sim reinforcement should be fine.  That would compel players to consider new and different strategy options.  Again, no argument is necessary if this is an OPTION and players could decide for themselves whether to use it or not.
 
 

[Marshall Ellis]

I am not even looking to do this for now guys!

1. This very option limits France's dominance.
2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

IF this were to be an option it would fall way after a Classic Scenario and TCP/IP!

[Jimmer]

Regarding France's dominance, I would support a compromise where the five non-dominant powers were simultaneous, followed by GB and France (simultaneous with each other or not, I wouldn't care).

[StCyr]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?

[Dancing Bear]

That seems fair. There does not seem to be too much interest in this option. There was a lot more interest in delaying the timing of cavalry.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I am not even looking to do this for now guys!

1. This very option limits France's dominance.
2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

IF this were to be an option it would fall way after a Classic Scenario and TCP/IP!

[Dancing Bear]

The Marshall did say he was learning. However, going to true EIA is alos not the right way to go, as with a computer game, we can improve it by taking out a lot of manual calculations and other inefficiencies.

ORIGINAL: StCyr

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

The Marshall did say he was learning. However, going to true EIA is alos not the right way to go, as with a computer game, we can improve it by taking out a lot of manual calculations and other inefficiencies.

ORIGINAL: StCyr

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?

"manual calculations" is hardly debatable; however, "other inefficiencies" is HIGHLY debatable. I have seen A LOT of your suggestions regarding this game and from most of them (while good and with good intentions) tend to want to make this NOT the PC Empires in Arms and tend to want this game to be something else entirely.

[pzgndr]

I have seen A LOT of your suggestions regarding this game and from most of them (while good and with good intentions) tend to want to make this NOT the PC Empires in Arms and tend to want this game to be something else entirely.

As opposed to you and others wanting to make this game just another souped up version of Vassal or Cyberboard pbem software without any PC game features such as computer opponents and realistic fog of war?? Sure. Go play Vassal or Cyberboard if that's all you want. PC games should provide more.

If Marshall ever considers a real fog of war option where players really don't know where their opponents' corps and fleets are, much less where reinforcements are placed, then placement order becomes irrelevant and sim reinforcement would work fine. Obviously not a priority right now, but down the road this should be reconsidered.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I have seen A LOT of your suggestions regarding this game and from most of them (while good and with good intentions) tend to want to make this NOT the PC Empires in Arms and tend to want this game to be something else entirely.

As opposed to you and others wanting to make this game just another souped up version of Vassal or Cyberboard pbem software without any PC game features such as computer opponents and realistic fog of war?? Sure. Go play Vassal or Cyberboard if that's all you want. PC games should provide more.

If Marshall ever considers a real fog of war option where players really don't know where their opponents' corps and fleets are, much less where reinforcements are placed, then placement order becomes irrelevant and sim reinforcement would work fine. Obviously not a priority right now, but down the road this should be reconsidered.

Actually, I'm all for an AI (though I don't think it will ever be any good), as I've stated before. Do I think the AI should take priority over PBEM? No, as I've stated before.

Fog of war was not included in Empires in Arms. That said, I don't have a problem with other options being added that were not original as long as they ENHANCE the game. Most of the EiH rules don't enhance the game, IMO. Also, I don't think true FOW would enhance the game that much. NOW, if it were FOW such as a lot of boardgames (where the face of the stack is downward) then I would be all for that.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: StCyr

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

2. Goes against true EiA (Which I am learning is wrong and hazardous).

Oh, come on! Why start to care about this now ?

I'm aloud to learn from my mistakes, huh?

[sw30]

I just want to post in support of EiH 5.0, which is a much better game than EiA...

[Dancing Bear]

Oh-oh Neverman, what have you started now?

In response to your post, yes, I like to post a lot, just like you. It gives me something to do while I am waiting for my turn.

By inefficiencies I refer to the strict adherence to the EIA phase system, which creates enormous number of file exchanges and time spent waiting. The phase system was routinely bent in the board games we played to accommodate late or absent players, which generally made the game more enjoyable. There is still more room for improvement on this front, and I'm sure you will let me know when we stray too far.

Other ideas I can mostly take or leave, although I would like to see trivial battles.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: sw30

I just want to post in support of EiH 5.0, which is a much better game than EiA...

Have not played 5.0
Briefly, what makes it better?

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
...Fog of war was not included in Empires in Arms. ...

Actually, it was, but limited: You didn't know what was in an enemy's corps until you fought it.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
...Fog of war was not included in Empires in Arms. ...

Actually, it was, but limited: You didn't know what was in an enemy's corps until you fought it.

Correct, not the FoW you guys are talking about though.... it's all in the context.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Correct, not the FoW you guys are talking about though.... it's all in the context.

Hence, the reason I started the other thread.