Battle results

[Dancing Bear]

Hi Marshall

can you add a icon to the map that can be clicked on to show the battle results (i.e. pull up the last screen shot from the battle page)? It seems ridiculous to be involved as the defender in a single corps combat, or as a participant who has loaned corps to a battle, and not to be able to get the results of the battle, without having to ask for them or rely on the inaccurate log.

Right now, all the games I am in have a house rule that in the above cases, one of the players involved send the results by email to the others. However, players often need to be reminded of this, which is annoying for both parties. A simple clickable icon would make the information available to all the participants, which makes sense and is a lot more EIA like than the current system of secret battle results (or at least secret to the defender, even if the defender wins).

Perhaps this icon could only be accessed by participants in the battle, but I'd prefer there be a host option to allow all players to see the results, mostly to give them a chance to chime in with condolences, insults, etc., which were always part of the board game and is sometimes missed.

[bresh]

I can support this.

And i would as prior, support option that Solo-defending corps not have quick battles.
Its unbalanced since you dont get to pick your chit knowing essentials like oposing leader, number of attacking Corps, possible reinforcements etc.
Nor can defender use guard commitment, or reinforce the battle.

Currently its unbalancing, and simply not in the essence of EIA

Regards
Bresh

[easterner]

All battles by all players should have results available at all times. This is 1800's A.D. not 1800 B.C. Lots of books and newspapers and readers eager to know what's going on in the world.

[Marshall Ellis]

I can see where this should be done! I will look to seee if it can be done...

[pzgndr]

can you add a icon to the map that can be clicked on to show the battle results (i.e. pull up the last screen shot from the battle page)?

The memory requirements for screenshots of all battle results may be prohibitive? Certainly a text file or something with battle results summaries should be possible. Ideally, some sort of hyperlink where you could double click a battle result in the game log and have the specific battle results summary popup would be nice.

[Skanvak]

No the screen shot would not be a problem.
The program will read a the combat reasult and load the graphic from the game. It won't be really a screen shot.

[Marshall Ellis]

I "think" I am maintaining the battle data until the next diplomacy anyway. Maybe I can sustain them through the next naval phase which would give enough time to review. I'm not opposed to adding a separate textfile battle log, thoughts?

[Mardonius]

I'd love to have some sort of accurate battle log.... including the phasing, DRs etc. Makes it really exciting and one can then do statistical analyses on results, which lends to further enhancing the game.

[ereiser]

Back to Dancing Bears & Bresh's comments at top.  Agree on all counts. 
 
Bresh's comments regarding single corps combats.  As mentioned in another thread, even being able to give orders to your corps during land phase would be an improvement, but making even single corps combat should be PBEM in my book (I am willing to accept the time delays, others would not).  If not PBEM, orders during land phase should include a reinforcement attempt option (perhaps something like the political reaction screen - I order 'Defend' and will attempt reinforce if attacker chooses 'Assault' or 'Esc Assault').  Ordering Guard commitment is a little more difficult to address in that format (really probably impossible - but what is your Guard Corps wandering around by itself anyway?).
 
Dancing Bears comments - If the log was more detailed and accurate, it could preform the function of battle reports (even more tedious scrolling!), but the idea of an icon to click to show a screen shot is preferable.
 
And on force compositions - What about forces in sieges?  Garrisons are shown.  But even if the besiegers are simply trying to starve out the defenders (i.e. no assault) the besieged should be able to "count campfires" and get a reasonable estimate of the besieging forces (Realistically, would you besiege those 10 points of militia with your 1 pt British corps?).
 
ER

[Skanvak]

I don't like logs. I prefer to look at in game graphics or replay.

[itmc09]

I'll second this. Not knowing the composition of a force that has just assaulted your city or attacked your single Corps can be a critical disadvantage for the defender. In the original EiA all the players were allowed to see the results of a battle. This means that the attacking player was much more careful in attacking single Corps of cities knowing he will give away the composition of his force. This affects the strategy of the game: knowing the composition of that French force that just battled Austria can give lots of info to the British, Russian and Prussian players.

In PBEM this absence of information on battles make players somehow more lonely and less involved. Ideally there should be a battle marker until for example the next diplo phase that would allow any player to click and see the final battle screenshot.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: ereiser

Back to Dancing Bears & Bresh's comments at top.  Agree on all counts. 

Bresh's comments regarding single corps combats.  As mentioned in another thread, even being able to give orders to your corps during land phase would be an improvement, but making even single corps combat should be PBEM in my book (I am willing to accept the time delays, others would not).  If not PBEM, orders during land phase should include a reinforcement attempt option (perhaps something like the political reaction screen - I order 'Defend' and will attempt reinforce if attacker chooses 'Assault' or 'Esc Assault').  Ordering Guard commitment is a little more difficult to address in that format (really probably impossible - but what is your Guard Corps wandering around by itself anyway?).


ER

Reinforce/guard committing can be quite complex.
Reinforce could matter on the size of the attacker, or/and the wish to inflict more casulties, or save cav/gd factors/Leaders.

Same goes for guard commiting it can be done to decrease pursuit, or to break the opponent, not to mention in combination of reinforcing/beeing reinforced.

I can think of a couple times where Guard corps wander alone solo(their friends died.....).

Regards
Bresh

[larrywrose]

First I suggest we have an option button for single corps combat. Perhaps even somthing that can be selected with the chit choice you can preselect.

I am all for a battle log. This has been brought up before. I would like to make it an option to open all battles and their results to the game. Then let anyone scroll through a list of battles that are listed by Year, Month, Location and finally phasing player. Click on that battle, the you can scroll through the entire battle. It would also be nice if the Year, Month and Phasing Player were added to the curent screen shots.

I also support the idea of a toggle that turns on a Battle Icon on the map. Perhaps two colors, one to represent recent battles, and one to represent battles more that 3 months old.

Finally I hate being "locked out" of looking at the corps when a battle is in process. I would at least like to have the same info as when there is no battle going on.

Thanks again for your hard work.

Larry W. Rose

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

I was wondering if it might be possible or even feasible,to show combat screens of AI VERSUS AI battles,if for no other reason that it would be a great learning tool for new players to learn from computer battles,with all chit picks & die rolls included etc,as if it were a human v human battle?

[ndrose]

At the moment all AI vs. AI battles are resolved as trivial combat. I don't know why this should be, since Marshall obviously already has a chit-picking mechanism in place for the AI. I submitted a request to change it to Mantis a while back.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

I also see no reason why we should not be able to follow all combat with much more clarity,AI V human already works,why should the AI V AI not be equally transparent,this is supposed to be a conversion from a board game after all,and as far as I'm aware, everyone who played the board game could follow all combat for all players in real time yes / no,I think it would give the game a far more interactive feel just like,playing the board game?

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ndrose I have added a note to your post on mantis,I know that Marshall is very busy,but I do feel that this aspect off the game needs fixing soon.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: ndrose
At the moment all AI vs. AI battles are resolved as trivial combat. I don't know why this should be, since Marshall obviously already has a chit-picking mechanism in place for the AI. I submitted a request to change it to Mantis a while back.

I'm digging up bones here from long ago, but just letting folks know I've got this issue in my crosshairs now for my v1.22.03 development work. This is a very tricky problem. Although there is an AI chit-picking mechanism and AI casualty selection mechanism in place, these are called from the combat form and combat function which assumes the human player is one side. What I need to do is create a new AI-vs-AI combat function to recreate all of those actions handled elsewhere in the code. I think it's doable, just tricky and tedious. I'd really like to resolve this and then move on to surrenders/separate peace options. Slowly making progress.

Merry Christmas!