Matrix Games Forums

Can we axe file exchanges for siege combats? This is really annoying, and takes a lot of unnecessary time.

I see two options:

a) The game should have a default order in which the sieged force losses occur. Something like 1) Morale 2 or less minor infantry (in alphabetic order of nationality), 2) militia (lowest political status takes losses first), 3) morale 3 or higher minor infantry, 4) feudal Inf, 5) fuedal cav, 6) major power infantry, 7) morale 2 or less minor nation cav, 8) morale 3 or higher minor nation cav, 9) major power guard, 10) major power artillery, 11) major power cav.

The above list could be accessed by the controlling major power by "standing orders", and various unit types pushed up and down scale, similar to how France and GB choose when they move. If the list is not accessed, it stays as above.

OR b) Change one line of code, and only do file exchanges if there are 2 or more CORPS present (e.g. change so that garrison factors don't count as corps for seige combats). Otherwise let the AI decide on the losses. It does it all the time in player vs AI games, so the coding for what losses to take must already be there.

I like b), but whatever is done, can we please axe file exchanges for siege combats. How hard is it to implement b)?

Don't think it would be too hard??? Option it out?

Option B seems very sensible as it already works and is still minimal delegation.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Don't think it would be too hard??? Option it out?

You can if you like, but I don't think you need to worry about an option for this one. I would just change it. Nobody is going to miss these file exchanges for siege combats.

I agree, get rid of em.

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Don't think it would be too hard??? Option it out?

You can if you like, but I don't think you need to worry about an option for this one. I would just change it. Nobody is going to miss these file exchanges for siege combats.

Sorry, but i disagree.

The reason for putting a corps inside the garrison, alongside a garrison, is to get file exchange, and valuable intelligence.

Also like i wrote couple times now, single-defense-corpse should, be allowed file exchange(set by host settings). Its very unbalancing, chit-selection differs if you know # corps you fight, who commands etc, and if cav-corps attack. Also you atm you loose the ability to reinforce such defending battles.


On a sidenote, Marshall E, siege with corps+garrisons inside is buggy.
Im guessing its the battlesecurity that messes the siege code.
But 1.round both attacker and defender has to pick casualties blindly, not knowing rolls, # casulties to take, nor own force.

Regards
Bresh

Well Bresh, how about this a two part alternative. First, we ask Marshall to option this in, not through a grand across the board game option, but by adding a "file exchange battle" to the list of standing orders, which if selected means that the one particular battle would be fought as a file exchange (otherwise it will use the standing orders (fight/surrender/etc.) for any siege battle where there are not 2 corps present). This is essentially what I suggested with an option built in for file exchange or no file exchange depending in the city defenders preference.

Then second, for all file exchange battles, we add a check box to the battle screen of both players, that if selected allows that player to opt for the remainder of the battle to be entirely fought on his opponents machine (i.e. the AI decides on the losses using the existing code for this). If selected, this reduces the number of file exchanges from three to one (note because of the new security measures, there is no opportunity for the opponent to reload the files in the hope of getting better results). How does this sound?

Marshall would need to add a line or two of code to add the "file exchange battle" option to the list of standing orders. And then add another couple of lines for a check box to be added to the battle screen to allow the remaining rounds of the battle to be fought on the opponents machine(i.e. to select to let the AI decide on the losses). To me, this appears to be only slightly more complex than the original proposal, but achieves the objective of speeding up battles, with maximum flexibility. It will also allows players to gain valuable intelligence even if only a single factor garrison is present (and they decide to fight).

I see this as a win-win addition requiring only a very limited programming effort. Bresh, is this something you would support?

Hi DB.

As long as its option only.

But as long as the intelligence gathered is as limited inside the game as is, i would not support this as a general method.

Regards
Bresh

Ok, Bresh, so to sum up, you are ok with either a) the player optioning to complete the battle on his oppoent's machine as describe in my most recent post (i.e. to reduce file exchanges from 3 to 1), or b) what was originally proposed in this post (no file exchange unless two corps are present) with another mechanism that reveals all the battle results to at least those players involved in the battle (i.e. the ability of players in the battle to see the last screen shot of the battle as discussed in the other threads).

I'm ok with both these approaches. I think both would make a game come very close to being very EIA like. We'll have to see what Marshall says.

The 'valuable intelligence' bit should be implemented separately -- either drop a summary in the log or accessible via a marker on the map.

Example:
(W) FR (Napoleon, Murat) outflank
(L) PR, RU (Kutusov) counterattack
Area 666
FR/I 22i,2c; II 15i,1c; Gds 10g/1c -> I/19i,2c; II 15i,1c; Gds 10g/1c
RU/I 10i; II 3i -> I/5i, II/X
PR/III 8 -> III/X

or some such. That succinctly gives you the corps intelligence, and more importantly records it for you so you don't have to write it down manually. The die rolls and individual rounds are not that important unless you suspect cheating or a PRNG bug. Perhaps add a mention of guard commitment. 'garr', 'frei', 'coss', 'guerr' are neatly unambiguous and non-obscene.

Grognot, this is a good point., that there are two issues here. I like your suggestion for the logs.