View Full Version : The MRPB Feature and Europe Aflame
MRPB: Max Rounds Per Battle.
One of the main features of the TOAW engine is the combat rounds system. This system is somewhat unique, but it has its drawbacks.
For instance: It is fairly easy to get a couple combat rounds on minimize losses before you use up 50% of your turn. So, here I was, two Divisions sitting off the coast of Sicily, ready to make an attack on the port of Gela. I used 10% with my first combat round. For the second round I, stupidly, set up an attack on a surrounded group of Irish-men in Dublin. This attack, involving 3 UK Divisions and 1 Irish (with two Guerrilla Batts) Division proceeded to eat up the remaining 90% of my turn. This meant that my turn ended with my assault troops having never even hit the beaches. :cry:
With a scenario that has the complexity and diversity of Europe Aflame, you'll often end up having massive offensives happening on one front, (the Eastern Front, for example) while you have much smaller, ant, battles going on on other fronts (Ireland, North Africa, for example). This can often lead to a major offensive being screwed up because an ant battle ate up too much of your turn.
Therefore, I am now thinking of instituting the MRPB feature in EA. A standard MRPB of 3 is what I am thinking. Besides getting rid of some of the perils of having ant battles going on at the same time as a major offensive, it will somewhat help to even the odds when a more experienced player is playing a rookie, as a more experienced player can often get several rounds when a rookie may not understand the system at all.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this possible new feature in this, your favourite scenario.
Bdr.Mallette
16 Jun 07, 14:42
Yeah, I guess so.
But I find the best way to learn something quick, and effectively is to get trounced. You tend to ask more questions and search for answers more when you get thoroughly trounced. I get beat up on all the time now, and I'm think I'm in the next phase of learning...how to lose and know the answers, not ask them....lol.
Anyways, would it be a handicap feature that could be entered as a number.
And maybe develop a handicap system, dependant upon scenarios played, length, etc... kinda like the W.A.R.S. set-up?
that would be easier or more feasible and it might get more people involved in PBEM games and such.... in forums etc.
iunno, maybe.
bdr.
Mark Stevens
16 Jun 07, 15:03
I think it's an excellent suggestion.
Yeah, I guess so.
But I find the best way to learn something quick, and effectively is to get trounced. You tend to ask more questions and search for answers more when you get thoroughly trounced. I get beat up on all the time now, and I'm think I'm in the next phase of learning...how to lose and know the answers, not ask them....lol.
While I may agree that the best way to learn is to get trounced, I may also belive that the quickest way to scare new players away from the game is for them to get trounced do to a part of the game perplexing and frustrating them.
Anyways, would it be a handicap feature that could be entered as a number.
And maybe develop a handicap system, dependant upon scenarios played, length, etc... kinda like the W.A.R.S. set-up?
that would be easier or more feasible and it might get more people involved in PBEM games and such.... in forums etc.
It would not be a handicap feature. It would be set in the scenario. It would not affect veteran players as they could still do their thing and get 5-10 rounds per turn. It would simply make it a shade easier for the beginner.
As for a general handicap system used throughout the WARS system, you'll have to talk to someone else, as that is far out of my powers.
Personally, I think the WARS handicap system that already exists (higher ranked players get less points for a win against lower ranked players than for a win against higher ranked players) is pretty good already.
I think it's an excellent suggestion.
Good to have you onboard, Mark.
Bdr.Mallette
16 Jun 07, 23:05
While I may agree that the best way to learn is to get trounced, I may also belive that the quickest way to scare new players away from the game is for them to get trounced do to a part of the game perplexing and frustrating them.
true.
good idea.
bdr
The Vince
17 Jun 07, 09:23
I think its a good idea.
I just wonder if this works ingame and maybe 3 turns is a bit low to soften units up before an ignore losses assault for example.
I wonder if this dont benefits the defender too much.
Greetings The Vince
I think its a good idea.
I just wonder if this works ingame and maybe 3 turns is a bit low to soften units up before an ignore losses assault for example.
I wonder if this dont benefits the defender too much.
Greetings The Vince
Again, I think, this will not limit veteran players to 3 rounds. All it will do is make it easier for newer players to get more than one round.
Although, while on that topic, a veteran player, such as myself, could now worry less about the micromangement and just go for ignore losses every round and not have to worry about turn burn, possibly greatly increasing the 'fun' and lessening the 'micro-management'. :D
leehunt27
18 Jun 07, 14:23
I like the idea. 3 sounds like a good number. Turn burn during a German player's offensive in June 1941 in Russia etc isn't realistic and isn't what the game designers meant with it. Its more of a tactical thing but in a strategic game like Europe Aflame 3 rounds makes sense.
I like the idea. 3 sounds like a good number. Turn burn during a German player's offensive in June 1941 in Russia etc isn't realistic and isn't what the game designers meant with it. Its more of a tactical thing but in a strategic game like Europe Aflame 3 rounds makes sense.
Right.0000
Yep, I'm with you on this one too. I think 3 would be the optimal number to chose as well.
Dicke Bertha
21 Jun 07, 14:01
Probably a very silly question, but would it be possible to have a Minimum Rounds per Battle Feature?
Say I want to make three rounds a maximum?
I have played many scenarios and while attacking Russia in DnO or FiTE the first couple of turns really require a good use of rounds, an experienced player like myself can really make a scenario like GiO be all over quickly if I set my mind to maximising rounds. With four rounds as a rule in GiO, the Germans stand no chance. Sorry to se that ketchup effect happening after investing 100 hours into the game.
The rounds requirement will vary.
Is there any way of making this dynamical? Coupled to something, say events or?
Probably a very silly question, but would it be possible to have a Minimum Rounds per Battle Feature?
Say I want to make three rounds a maximum? You'll have to petition Ralph and James to create it, as it is not currently available.
Is there any way of making this dynamical? Coupled to something, say events or?
Af far as I know, no.
Sounds good to me im lucky to get three rounds seem to finnish half my turns to early with units exposed and out of position.
Ian
Probably a very silly question, but would it be possible to have a Minimum Rounds per Battle Feature?
Say I want to make three rounds a maximum?
I have played many scenarios and while attacking Russia in DnO or FiTE the first couple of turns really require a good use of rounds, an experienced player like myself can really make a scenario like GiO be all over quickly if I set my mind to maximising rounds. With four rounds as a rule in GiO, the Germans stand no chance. Sorry to se that ketchup effect happening after investing 100 hours into the game.
The best plan, that I can think of currently for you, would be to agree with oyur opponeent before hand on a round cap.
Dicke Bertha
25 Jun 07, 13:37
The best plan, that I can think of currently for you, would be to agree with oyur opponeent before hand on a round cap.
I doubt though that a 'hold back' max round cap would feel comfortable for players. The reason for asking obviously is to utimately eliminate any soaking-off possibility supply-wise, I find myself using it even in solitaire. :hush: I've seen some discussions anyway on the supply issue, I hope TOAW future development on supply issues will make the question moot.
Thanks for the help Veers.
I doubt though that a 'hold back' max round cap would feel comfortable for players. The reason for asking obviously is to utimately eliminate any soaking-off possibility supply-wise, I find myself using it even in solitaire. :hush: I've seen some discussions anyway on the supply issue, I hope TOAW future development on supply issues will make the question moot.
Thanks for the help Veers.
Well, hopefully it will be fixed in future TOAW development. However, keep in mind that it doesn't hurt to try. I, myself, suggested a round cap when I started playing Mark in EA, as he doesn't micro-manage and doesn't get all that many rounds per turn, whereas I micromanage more, and get more rounds (however, I do not, and don't relaly know how to anyways (I don't want to know how) do supply-drain ant attacks). Players may not be as uncomfortable with it as you think (unless you're talkign about yourself :D.
Another note: With an MRPB set to 3. You could use all your attacks at 'ignore losses', going a long way to ensuring that you use all three rounds. That way, you would pretty much have a minimum of three rounds, and a maximum of three rounds, as well. This is pretty much how I plan to start playign EA, when we implement the MRPB feature in EA. (Unless I'm playing someone who is very experienced, then all the regular tricks come out again. :devious: )
Dicke Bertha
25 Jun 07, 14:06
Well, hopefully it will be fixed in future TOAW development. However, keep in mind that it doesn't hurt to try. I, myself, suggested a round cap when I started playing Mark in EA, as he doesn't micro-manage and doesn't get all that many rounds per turn, whereas I micromanage more, and get more rounds (however, I do not, and don't relaly know how to anyways (I don't want to know how) do supply-drain ant attacks). Players may not be as uncomfortable with it as you think (unless you're talkign about yourself :D.
Another note: With an MRPB set to 3. You could use all your attacks at 'ignore losses', going a long way to ensuring that you use all three rounds. That way, you would pretty much have a minimum of three rounds, and a maximum of three rounds, as well. This is pretty much how I plan to start playign EA, when we implement the MRPB feature in EA. (Unless I'm playing someone who is very experienced, then all the regular tricks come out again. :devious: )
MaxRPB 3 with a 'manually applied MinRPB3': yea doable, but to go heads on with ignore losses attacks is a rather suicidal approach often enough, and not what I'd find practical or logical - as real defensive strengths can be very uncertain, probes are OK, only as long as not to soak off. They should consume time though... Tricky balance there for a player to maintain throughout hundreds of turns...:nervous:
But the idea as a designer and/or player enforced setting for both Min and Max is good, you'll need a minus and a plus to create a real tolerance span. As now, it's only delimited in one direction.
MaxRPB 3 with a 'manually applied MinRPB3': yea doable, but to go heads on with ignore losses attacks is a rather suicidal approach often enough, and not what I'd find practical or logical - as real defensive strengths can be very uncertain, probes are OK, only as long as not to soak off. They should consume time though... Tricky balance there for a player to maintain throughout hundreds of turns...:nervous:
But the idea as a designer and/or player enforced setting for both Min and Max is good, you'll need a minus and a plus to create a real tolerance span. As now, it's only delimited in one direction.
Good points.
I'm back to the desk!
Still have a massive backlog of work to catch up on, but I'm trolling the forums again. As to the magical number 3...
I concur!
:clap:
I'm back to the desk!
Still have a massive backlog of work to catch up on, but I'm trolling the forums again. As to the magical number 3...
I concur!
:clap:
Glad you're back. If you can review those emails I last sent (couple weeks ago?) that'd be great.
Had a peek at them to try and catch up yesterday, just haven't had the time to reply. I'll send something out today!
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.