New Game Options?

[pzgndr]

The other thread about playability raises (re-raises?) a good point about implementing classic EiA rules versus EiH rules. It begs a question, what game options could Marshall add to help provide more choices?

1) The naval game still needs some attention. Mantis #510 for proportional naval losses would be a good on/off option. Some players indicated they don't like this, so make it a game option. The political points for naval losses should be reconsidered regardless and be applicable to either classic EiA or EiANW scenarios. A game option for advanced naval combat (in whatever form, TBD) would also be a good on/off option. Hellfirejet would appreciate this!

2) Mantis #92 proposes a game option for alternate dominant powers / gaining / losing dominance.

3) Mantis #61 proposes a game option for overwhelming numbers.

4) Mantis #110 proposes a game option for political restrictions on peace.

5) Mantis #93/94/95/96 propose additional political combinations for Kingdoms of Italy, Westphaia, Bavaria and Two Sicilies. This could be a game option or implemented as a standard feature?

6) Mantis #761 proposes that phasing corps can not bypass garrisoned depots. This appears to be more of a rules deviation that should be fixed as a standard feature?

What else?

Once v1.08.05 gets released and Marshall gets some more free time to code new features rather than scrambling to fix bugs and pbem game files, maybe he could tackle some of these. [8D]

[Yearworld]

This is a great idea pzgndr. I will have to examine the rules and see if I can think of anything. All these are a good start though. I think the main question is whether we should be trying to fix things for PBEM or AI or both. Personally I only care about PBEM but that is just my opinion as I know that many others only want AI or both.

For example:
#1-If 1.08.05 turns out as promised, the host could force proportional naval losses on each side if the players agreed to it. Also in theory could do Advanced naval combat through a workaround. I want a good naval phase but wonder if spending so much time on it is worth it when the host can run it as a workaround.
#2 can be done with the editor if you are playing a multiplayer game as long as the players agree on it beforehand

I would love to see #5.

Just my opinions.

Yearworld

[BoerWar]

I don't know what those Mantis numbers mean, but I proposed a fix to the conditional surrender page a while back. I think it would be a big help.

tm.asp?m=2694922

[pzgndr]

BoerWar's proposal:

Why not just add a button selection in the offer conditional surrender menu that says "Require surrender to:" and then list the other countries at war with the country that is being offered a conditional... This would give the winning powers the ability to tell someone they are beating that I'll give you a conditional, but only if you also surrender to my allies that I choose. Surrender terms can be negotiated and de-conflicted among the winners outside the game.

Skanvak's comment:

On rules : only the surrender rules that is not implemented correctly is a problem.

Are these essentially the same thing? Sounds more like a rules deviation issue to fix, which should resolve the problem with allies surrendering. Are there other surrender options that could be considered?

[Dancing Bear]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Skanvak's comment:

On rules : only the surrender rules that is not implemented correctly is a problem.

Are these essentially the same thing? Sounds more like a rules deviation issue to fix, which should resolve the problem with allies surrendering. Are there other surrender options that could be considered?

I think Skanvak's comment refers to the old rule where units that fail to leave an enemy's territory within 3 months are eliminated, not teleported home.

In response to this, the new in game editor allows units to be removed from the map, so in the rare cases, where a player can not get out in time, the host can step in and remove these units to enforce the rule. So this could be readily implemented through house rules using the existing game.

The host can also move units, so if you want to keep the teleportation, but you are teleported to wrong location, which occassionally happens, this can be fixed.

[Dancing Bear]

With one exception (see top of list below), I already think that the game plays very much like the board game. But since you asked, here's my list of items to make the game more EIA like:

1) Depot screening is a problem. Huge 100 factor armies are being bogged down by lines of depots or a couple of hundred undisciplined cossacks (at no political point cost!). Very, very unrealistic. As per the board game, corps should be able to bypass depots and cossacks. This is actually a significant bug in my opinion and really changes the feel of the game.
2) Standing orders for single corps battles give too much advantage to the attacker. Either a) Use existing standing order code only when there is a <5:1 ratio, otherwise run a file exchange battle, b) use trivial battles when 5:1, and standing orders otherwise. Drop file exchange battles for all siege battles as these are a waste of time.
3) Surrender conditions give too much option to loser to pick and choose amongst the winners, some modest changes here would be an improvement. See Gazfun's suggestion.
4) Currently enemy supply depots are lacking in strategic importance. We should allow capture and automatic conversion of depots after a field battle as per the board game (also needs a standing order for depot garrisons to destroy depot and retreat into city/surrender). This is very closely related to (1).
5) We are missing the overwhelming numbers rule that allows corps involved in trivial field battles to reinforce (trivial battles are those against depots, cossacks and maybe >5:1 ratio). Players are not using reinforcement enough, which added interest to the game. This is very closely related to (1).
6) a proportional losses option for the naval rules (or a classic scenario without light ships).

The following are missing, but not entirely necessary IMO:

1) Alternative dominant status (expand new in-game editor to allow morale changes?)
2) British training (expand new in-game editor to allow morale changes?)
3) Alternate kingdoms (I don't really miss this, but it would be good to be able to add provinces to Poland and the Ottoman)
4) Retreat into city option. Other than for depot garrisons retreats, I can not see how this could be done with useful input from the controlling player. If the player wants the corps in the city, he should place it there during his land or reinforcement phase. I don't think we need it.

Things we will shortly be able to do with the editor, or can already do:

1) A scenario without light ships (I can't stand light ships). We can use the existing scenario maker for this, but an official scenario would be great.
2) An option to fore the destruction of forces if they fail to leave 3 months after the end of a war (we can use the new in-game editor for this, and no new code is required here)
3) Manipulate manpower to allow for levee en mass in 1792 scenario (we can use the new in-game editor for this, and no new code is required here)
4) implement the faillure to leave rule with the in-game editor.

I should probably add that we should not get too excited here. There is a list of about 25 bugs to fix, which will take a couple of weeks, and the classic scenario, which will be a couple of months in development, then IP. I don't think some of the above are too hard to code, but would you rather delay the classic and get the relatively simple ones of these done? The relatively simple ones are likely the depot/cossack screening, proportional naval losses, surrender conditions, and maybe standing orders using trivial battles for 5:1.

[Skanvak]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Skanvak's comment:

On rules : only the surrender rules that is not implemented correctly is a problem.

Are these essentially the same thing? Sounds more like a rules deviation issue to fix, which should resolve the problem with allies surrendering. Are there other surrender options that could be considered?

I think Skanvak's comment refers to the old rule where units that fail to leave an enemy's territory within 3 months are eliminated, not teleported home.

In response to this, the new in game editor allows units to be removed from the map, so in the rare cases, where a player can not get out in time, the host can step in and remove these units to enforce the rule. So this could be readily implemented through house rules using the existing game.

The host can also move units, so if you want to keep the teleportation, but you are teleported to wrong location, which occassionally happens, this can be fixed.

There was this point and the the rule that allow for total conquest of a country (with AI it is a must) or limit to really three provinces loss total (not each peace).

Otherwise you did a good resume of what is lacking.

[NeverMan]

Classic EiA. Just implement it, the rules already exist.

[BoerWar]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Skanvak's comment:

On rules : only the surrender rules that is not implemented correctly is a problem.

Are these essentially the same thing? Sounds more like a rules deviation issue to fix, which should resolve the problem with allies surrendering. Are there other surrender options that could be considered?

I think Skanvak's comment refers to the old rule where units that fail to leave an enemy's territory within 3 months are eliminated, not teleported home.

In response to this, the new in game editor allows units to be removed from the map, so in the rare cases, where a player can not get out in time, the host can step in and remove these units to enforce the rule. So this could be readily implemented through house rules using the existing game.

The host can also move units, so if you want to keep the teleportation, but you are teleported to wrong location, which occassionally happens, this can be fixed.

If that is what Skanvak's comment refers to then my comment is different.

My proposal refers to surrenders to a coalition of nations. In my opinion the victors should have the ability to dictate terms. If one of those terms is I will accept your surrender, but only if you also surrender to my ally then those terms should be enforceable within the game. Right now it is possible for the loser to agree to those terms during email diplomatics, but then not actually follow through in the game. When this is done the countries that were winning normally end up with a broken alliance, the strongest members out of the war and no ability to re-enter due to enforced peace. This allows the losing power to manipulate game mechanics to change defeat into a lesser defeat with the possibility of a quick victory. In reality the dominant coalition should have the ability to walk away from the peace table if the weaker power is trying something this. My proposed fix is intended to address this.

[Marshall Ellis]

This is something that we really did not see coming. Technically, this could be done in real EiA, correct?

[Mardonius]

It was not possible make someone adhere to the terms of a surrender extent)as the negotiations were all done in the same phase (a combined diplomacy, but details of a surrender could be worked out aforehand. We would have the surrender documents drawn up during the diplomacy step of the Political Phase and signed during the Peace step of the political phase. The Surrenderer could renege if they chose (usually a one time trick), though, as they were the ones to offer the peace. Moreover, it was not possible for the Victor to dictate terms -- though they could be talked through and this is advisable -- other than conditional or unconditional. The Country suing for Peace does not necessarily have to sue to all parties (unless occupied by one MP and wishing to sue to a MP country outside its borders) and, since all suits are executed at the same time (they are written down or could be written down and accepted or declined at the same time), I see no need to change the surrender process as it is now. Certainly this makes Unconditional Surrenders harder to achieve, but that is why we have Conditional Surrenders.

[Skanvak]

Well, Boer have a point.

The country sueing for peace can surely not sue every one BUT the coalition cannot be forced to accept a peace offer if the loser have not sued its allied. This is unhistorical, and will defeated the penalty for separate peace. Separate peace is a voluntary move by winning side, sode puting a condition like : "do not allow separate peace" can be useful.

In real EiA, the suing power would annonce all its suing before the other accept. In real world, every one would be present at the signing table.

[Mardonius]

Partially true, Skanvak. A Country which is sued for peace by another country can demand an US Surrender, which may result in continued war. If the recipient of the suit offers a conditional, then peace will arise, allies or not. These suits do happen simultaneously (See "write down" portion below)

4.4.2.2: When a major power sues for peace, the opponent must then offer a "formal peace," either a "conditional peace, " which must be accepted, or an 1 unconditional peace, which may be accepted only if the suing player desires. If desired, and several major powers are being sued for peace, have each player write down 'conditional' or 'unconditional' before revealing all the peace proposals simultaneously.

What is retroactive and could be handled better in the game mechanisms, is the breaking of alliances function due to separate peace function. Perhaps, during the next reinf phase allow non-peace making allies to break an alliance with those who made peace by accepting via a Conditional Surrender a surrender suit. NOTE THAT THIS IS A RETROACTVE DECISION and should not require a preset button.

See: 4.4.7 SEPARATE PEACE AND ALLIES: If a major power surrenders to some but remains at war with other major powers, a major power with which war continues may demand that an ally or allies that was a victor in the formal peace immediately break their alliance(s) with the major power still at war (and lose "-2" political points for breaking the alliance). For example, Russia and Austria are allies and are both at war with Prussia. Prussia surrenders to Austria, but not to Russia. The Russian player may demand that Austria break its alliance with Russia. An ally may also demand that an ally that concludes an informal peace with a common enemy break their alliance

[Skanvak]

I will emphasize the "if desire" which means it is optional. I still consider that the coalition being sued (or even the suing coalition) can agree to a global settlement of the conflict and that a system trick shouldn't allow for backstabbing at this stage.

Though I will go by your second proposal as the breaking of alliance is not mandatory and should then be an active decision not an automatic result.

[Dancing Bear]

I really like this idea about breaking alliances in the reinforcement phase, but do you think this might run into trouble with loaning units? Maybe they would automatically revert to their owners if they were loaned early in the reinforcement phase, but the alliance between the Loaner and loanee was broken late in the phase.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
I will emphasize the "if desire" which means it is optional.

Not really Skanvak... It means that the players have the option. Any player involved in the surrender process. So they -- any or all of these players -- have the option of simultaneous revealing but the rule of having the option of revealing simultaneously is not optional. No player can insist, contrary to the others) wish(es) on not having a simultaneous revealing.

best
Mardonius

[Dancing Bear]

Sounds to me as if we can give players an check box that says "Respond to offer of surrender with conditional, if offer of surrender is also made to the following:" then list your allies, with check boxes. The default is offer an unconditional, which your opponent can always opt to accept.

The key here is not an ally making peace, but the loser offering peace. It differs from the fist suggestion in that a winner can not demand peace be made with everyone, only offered to everyone. Once the offer is made, it is up to your ally to accept/reject, etc. This closely matches the original rules of an open declaration of an offer to surrender, followed by simultaneous and secret acceptance.

We can then implement the break alliance pop-up box at the start of the reinforcement phase for any ally that has indeed made peace (whether conditional, informal or unconditional).

Does this fix the surrender rules?

[Mardonius]

Seems that it would.