Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Minor Fleet Abuse

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Minor Fleet Abuse Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/12/2006 6:48:06 PM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline 		Just wondering if anyone ever puts in a house rule limiting what players can do with the fleets of minor countries that they win control of when another player DoW against the minor.

In case I'm not being clear, does anyone have a house rule that prohibits a minor fleet from being put to a suicide attack against port defenses until its destroyed, as in the case of a Britain that doesn't want Spain to get the Portuguese fleet intact, or a French player that doesn't want the British to get the Dutch fleet, etc.?
Post #: 1
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/12/2006 9:53:05 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		Oh yes, we have a rule that if someone tries this another player can challenge the move and if the other players agree the move is improper, then the person controlling the minor has to do a different plan.  Impaling on port defenses was almost always disallowed (if it was a reasonable chance of capturing the port and cutting sea supply that would be allowed but I can't think of any other circumstance), impaling on fleets on the other hand was almost always allowed under the idea that the Dutch, for example, were a proud people and would at least attempt a sortie to slow down the British invasion, preferably by finding a lone fleet counter or intercepting one.

(in reply to Joisey)
Post #: 2
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/15/2006 6:21:23 PM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline 		Yes, I like this rule. It's no fun if the minor fleets always end up getting demolished by a major power player. I like to see Spain picking up some extra fleets and keeping the British player on his toes.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 3
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/17/2006 6:51:13 PM   
malcolm_mccallum

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline 		We always just told people who played that way to please go away. It worked on cheaters and spoilers too.

(in reply to Joisey)
Post #: 4
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/17/2006 7:17:26 PM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline
quote:

minor fleet from being put to a suicide attack against port defenses until its destroyed,


i forget, there's no PP loss for doing this?

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)
Post #: 5
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/17/2006 8:50:31 PM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

quote:

minor fleet from being put to a suicide attack against port defenses until its destroyed,


i forget, there's no PP loss for doing this?



Cost for winning control of a minor that someone you were already at war with DoW'd against: nothing, you actually gain +2 points (4.6.2.3)

Cost for winning control of a minor that someone you were not already at war with DoW'd against: Nothing (4.6.3.6)

Cost for smashing the minor's fleet against harbor defenses: -1 PP (6.3.4.2)

Denying a rival a larger navy with which to threaten you: Priceless!

Bottom line: There is little or no cost to a player using this tactic, and it is well worth the gain considering the value of the ships he denys to his opponent.

Another cheesy move: Moving the minor corp into a fortress, which converts the cavalry to infantry and denies the attacker any PP gains from a field combat.



_____________________________

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 6
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/17/2006 11:14:18 PM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline 		No way, that's not cheesy. Why would the minor country corp fight a battle it can't win. Wait 'em out in a seige I say.

edit: rereading what you said I guess I missed your point. The major should not deploy the corps if he has no intention of letting it fight. Just put the factors in garrisons.

< Message edited by Roads -- 8/17/2006 11:16:53 PM >

(in reply to Joisey)
Post #: 7
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/17/2006 11:22:56 PM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline 		You would fight the battle to inflict more casualties on the enemy than possible in a siege defense, if that's possible (i.e. you don't face overwhelming force). This happens alot in North Africa where sea lift capacity limits how many corps the Major power comes at you with. Plus, with the high numbers of cavalry available to those minors, you could really hurt him if you outpick him and outroll him.

I agree that doing siege combat is the more conservative move.

_____________________________

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

(in reply to Roads)
Post #: 8
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 8/23/2006 11:59:58 PM   
yammahoper

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline 		Perhaps I am mistaken, but winning control of a minor is worth 1pp. Loosing it cost one pp. Battles lost are additional pp lost.

Declaring war on a minor cost no pp unless it is supported, then it cost 2pp. The attacker assumes he will win those points back in a won battle and conquest, breaking even. We have learned it is best to support all nations, as the supporter breaks even but it cost the attacker 1pp.

Of course, it has been more than a few years since I played, so my recollection could well be faulty.

I do recall one of my worst losses ever was with one 14 factor spanish corp against one tunisian corp. The defender left all his infantry in the city and came at me with five cav factors, thus a 2 morale, and beat me for two straigh fights. I eliminated the corp on fight number three, but it sure was costlt pp wise.

yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to Joisey)
Post #: 9
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 9/5/2006 1:02:00 AM   
hlj

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		You are mistaken, Declaring war on a minor country costs pp, unless none will control it. If none will control the minor, its forces are not set up, and it is easy for the attacker to conqure it and gain a pp.





4.2.1.2: A major power loses one political point for each district (see 10.4) in a neutral minor country when it declares war on that minor country, unless no major power can be found to run that minor country (see 4.6).

[4.6] THE MINOR COUNTRY CONTROL STEP: A major power must, if possible, be chosen to run each neutral minor country upon which war has been declared. The major power chosen must not be at war with that neutral minor country and may only be an ally of a major power at war with it if there are no non-allies willing or eligible to run it. If there is no major power willing or eligible to run the minor country, no attacker loses political points for declaring war on it and it's forces are not set up. (See 10. 2. 1 for conquering min or neutral countries.)

10.2.1 THE CONQUEST OF MINOR COUNTRIES: A minor country is conquered by one month's unbesieged occupation of its capital. The old control flag is changed for a conquered control flag of the new controlling major power to show the new control during the Conquest Step.

10.2.1.1: When a minor country is conquered by a major power, the minor country's surviving land forces (except for Poland-see 11.1.3.3) are considered to be eliminated and removed from the map. Minor country fleets are removed, but remain at their current ship strength and the fleet and ships are available as soon as that minor country again becomes a minor free state. While off-map, no maintenance is paid and factors and ships may not be added.

10.2.1.2: A minor country conquest gains the conqueror one political point per district (see 10.4) and costs the major power from which the country was conquered one political point per district. Record on the POI-ITICAI- STATUS DISPI-AY on the Status Card.

10.2.1.3: If a major power is not at war with another major power when a minor country it has been selected to run captures army factors of that other major power, those army factors must be returned immediately when the minor country is conquered or the war lapses (see 4.4.6. 1).

(in reply to yammahoper)
Post #: 10
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 9/7/2006 12:30:47 AM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline 		It would be silly for a player to roll for control of a minor with no corps. Likewise, even if it ends up costing you a pp or two, a player might find it worthwhile if it slows down his adversaries' rate of conquest or can inflict critical casualties, like yammahopper discovered.

_____________________________

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

(in reply to hlj)
Post #: 11
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 9/10/2006 12:16:27 AM   
hlj

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
it is not silly to roll for control of a minor with no corps.
Lets say france declares war on Duchies.
If no major power want to control Duchies, then France does not loose a political point for declaring the war. But he still gains a Political point when he captures Dutchies.
 
On the other hand if Turkey wants to control Duchies, then he gets a PP and France looses a PP for declaring the war. When France conqures Duches he will gain a pp and turkey will loose a pp. Setting all major powers back to status quo. If France declared war in December, March or any other month with an economy phase, turkey might even get a victory point for his trouble.
 
If it is silly to roll for control of a minor with no corps then it is silly to chose not to give a major power a free political point when your choises are to give the political point for free, or not to give anyone a political point. And that is silly to say the least.


< Message edited by hlj -- 9/10/2006 12:18:46 AM >

(in reply to Joisey)
Post #: 12
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 9/10/2006 12:17:07 AM   
hlj

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		4.6.3.1 MARKING CONTROL: The major power selected to run the minor country gains a political point per district (see 10.4) in the minor country (record on the POLITICAL POINTS CHART on the Status Card), and, to show control, places one of its control flags in the minor country. If the minor country has no forces, a conquered control flag is placed there. If the minor count has forces, that player places a free state control flag in that country and immediately sets them up. Once a player has been selected to run a minor country, that minor country may no longer incur separate declarations of war, until it returns to neutrality.

(in reply to hlj)
Post #: 13
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 9/28/2006 9:32:07 PM   
hlj

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

No way, that's not cheesy. Why would the minor country corp fight a battle it can't win. Wait 'em out in a seige I say.

edit: rereading what you said I guess I missed your point. The major should not deploy the corps if he has no intention of letting it fight. Just put the factors in garrisons.


I think a major power should always deploy the corps, weather or not he intents to use them. If he doesn't want to fight he can always hide in a city. The reason is that your opponent have deploy greater forces to comfortably do a field battle than besieging a city, and thus you can force him to pay more in suply and tie up more of his forces in the minor. Only exeptions to this are minors that doesnt have a cities large enough to accomidate all of its forces. There you have to choose before you set up your forces weather you wish to fight with them or not.

(in reply to Roads)
Post #: 14
RE: Minor Fleet Abuse - 9/29/2006 6:39:18 PM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline 		You have to weigh the liklihood of your opponent not breaking a seige quickly versus attacking him in the field to score what casualties you can.

Often it is better to prolong denying the minor to your enemy than it is to force him to take some losses.

_____________________________

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

(in reply to hlj)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Minor Fleet Abuse Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.765