Activation Rule

[Kensai]

I am usually harsh as far as settings go. I play with most of the features ON for realism and challenge. However there is a setting that I really find unrealistic in this era: the activation rule. I believe the last two options ("not being able to move at all" and "veteran rule") are ok in principle, but do not serve their purpose well for 15-days turns in 20th century warfare.

I don't have a problem with having some of my Generals locked in place when inactive, but this is happening way too often to be of realism. I have tried this with all three alliances and most of the times it is almost impossible to re-iterate the historical pace of certain units. If the turns were week-long or perhaps (better!) this percentage of happening lower, it would have been ok, but right now it is ruining realism.

I suggest we cut down the probability of having the Generals locked in place to half. After all, they should already be inactive in that turn, the extra penalty (locking them!) should be really low. In principle, it is ok for this happening now and then, but it happens really too often.

[Highlandcharge]

I never play with anything but veteran rule, its the most realistic for EAW IMHO... I have never liked the option where you generals get locked in place... it doesn't make sense for WWI

[Templer]

I never play with anything but veteran rule, its the most realistic for EAW IMHO... I have never liked the option where you generals get locked in place... it doesn't make sense for WWI

It may not be historical, but it has different demands, it is a variation to the gameplay.

[Highlandcharge]

It may not be historical, but it has different demands, it is a variation to the gameplay.

Whats your preferred activation setting Templar?

I like the idea of never knowing if a general will activated or not or if an attack will be made or not, its more realistic..

[Templer]

In the beginning, I always use with the default settings.
Later, it I still like the game, I start experimenting with the settings.

Please notice:
I do not say "right" or "wrong", "more" or "less" historical - I say, through various settings, a different gameplay is offered...

[Kensai]

I never play with anything but veteran rule, its the most realistic for EAW IMHO... I have never liked the option where you generals get locked in place... it doesn't make sense for WWI

What you say here is perplexing. Veteran rule should be Generals may get locked in place, albeit you don't know it until AFTER the turn has been processed (and probably your orders disregarded). Which is kind of cool, if you ask me, only that it is happening way too often for those inactivated Generals.

Thus, I agree in principle that THIS is the way to go, but it's kind of ridiculous to see 15-day locks of units in the early 20th century, especially when you try to imitate historical movements. In my humble opinion it is very easily fixable: for this (and every other modern era game for that matter) I think the probability of having the Generals locked in place if inactive should be half of what it is now.

Remember there is already a speed/combating penalty for the inactivated Generals and veteran rule takes care of that by hiding who is who. If we have on top of that the lock-ins happening in such a high frequency, it is ruining the simulated pace of certain historical moves.

[Highlandcharge]

Maybe I am wrong, maybe they do get locked in place when the turn processes...

I will have to look out for that when I process the next turn in one of the pbems I am playing...

KensaI maybe you should propose halving the chance of generals failing there activation check to the ageod guys in the beta forum to see what they think...

[Kensai]

If they don't get locked then the description is wrong. Veteran rule should be lock rule plus being unknown to the player as the entire activation status.
As I said, it's ok now and then to have Generals actually frozen in their position (we can imagine any reasons!), but I wish it happened less often than that.

[Merlin]

Veteran rule certainly doesn't lock them. A simple solution would be to increase the STR value of most or all generals by a point or two. Combined with GHQ bonuses, inactivity would be much more rare.

[Kensai]

Increasing the strategic value could have profound effects in the balance of other aspects. More testing will be needed for that. If Veteran rule does NOT lock units, then it is like the second setting (just lower movement and battle prowess) not the third. The description must be more accurate. Perhaps the Veteran setting should be before the locked-in setting.

Otherwise, we should simply add Veterans+Locked and decrease the locked in probability dice for all.

[Highlandcharge]

To be honest would like the veteran option to stay as it is....or like you say add another veteran+ option that does lock them if not activated...

Increasing the strategic value could have profound effects in the balance of other aspects. More testing will be needed for that. If Veteran rule does NOT lock units, then it is like the second setting (just lower movement and battle prowess) not the third. The description must be more accurate. Perhaps the Veteran setting should be before the locked-in setting.

Otherwise, we should simply add Veterans+Locked and decrease the locked in probability dice for all.

[Kensai]

Don't get me wrong, it is ideal as it is!! After all, if their "commands are cancelled" as the tooltip says, it is almost the same as being locked, their commands won't be followed for that turn. This whole story makes the locked-in setting not making any realistic sense at all.