EiA PBEM option?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

EiA PBEM option?

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 >> EiA PBEM option?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

EiA PBEM option? - 8/12/2006 6:51:18 PM

Joisey

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

Do you think the pc version of EiA will have a play by email option?

Is anyone interested in playing EiA by email while we wait for the computer game to come out?

Post #: 1

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/12/2006 9:47:04 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

I think this was answered in another thread with a yes.

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 2

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/13/2006 6:44:21 PM

Joisey

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

How about a PBEM game now? Think we can scrape 7 people together?

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 3

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/16/2006 2:00:01 PM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I'll be in a PBEM game.

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 4

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/16/2006 5:55:54 PM

Joisey

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

Could I join in too?

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 5

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/16/2006 9:59:43 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

What rules are you proposing? Will you have a non-playing GM to resolve the moves or will it be a player? Is there a fee for the GM to run the game (to cover pizza, coke, hair plugs, etc.)?

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 6

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/16/2006 11:02:31 PM

Joisey

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

You ask good questions.

I figure everyone here has the boardgame.

I wanted to play myself, and was willing to let people do their die rolls on an honor system. I've heard there are also some online die randomizers, but I don't know how they could be used to be a public system.

While it would be great to have an online map to keep track of the game, I have no ability in such matters. I've seen the VASSAL system used with other games. I assumed we would keep track of the game on our own maps. All orders for naval purchases and movement of all on map units would be either put out on an e-mail list to all players or to a thread here, if that's allowed. Economic Steps and the PSA step would have to be confirmed between all players.

Rule disputes: By majority vote of all players or, if deadlocked, by competitive die roll.

Alternatively if you think that wouldn't work, I'd be willing to GM and play all the minor countries. That would be one difference from the regular rules right there. Also, if we go through the trouble of having a GM, then a fog of war variant would be fun (may as well take advantage of the fact you have a GM). Under the Fog of War variant, Infantry Corps only "see" what's in their own province or surrounding provinces. Cavalry Corps (movement of 5) see two provinces away. Forces in your home nation, conquered minors, or free state minors are always known to you, friend or foe (you have built up a network of informants) Forces that blunder into enemy forces during movement (i.e. moved blindly) conduct immediate combats before any other movement is finished. "Blundering Forces" pick chits normally but have -1 to their die rolls (cumulative with other modifiers).

With a GM, all builds and orders (and diplomacy) will go through the GM. The GM would do all the die rolling.

Obviously, under Fog of War, you will have to spread your forces out a bit for reconaissance and the Defender will have a significant advantage over someone invading their home territory (they'll see you but you may not see them).

Proposed Rules:

1805 Grand Campaign game

Standard Rules except:

1) No economic manipulation
2) Optional Rules 11.0 - 11.9.1 in effect (New Political Combinations)
3) Optional Rules 12.1.1 - 12.1.2 in effect (militia conversion & ship building location)
4) Optional Rule 12.2.1.2 in effect ( Danish/Swedish sea crossings)
5) Optional Rule 12.2.5 in effect (Proportional Naval Losses)
6) Optional Rule 12.3.2 in effect (British Training)
7) Optional Rule 12.3.3.1 in effect (cavalry superiority)
8) Optional Rule 12.3.3.2 in effect (cavalry withdrawals)
9) Optional Rule 12.3.4 in effect (Guard commitment)
10) Optional Rule 12.3.5 in effect (artillery)
11) Optional Rule 12.3.6 in effect (Proportional Land losses)
12) Optional Rule 12.3.7 in effect (Army Leader Options)
13) Optional Rule 12.3.8 in effect (detaching minor corps factors)
14) Optional Rule 12.4 in effect ( Peace limited access all subsections)
15) Optional Rule 12.7 in effect (Leader Casualties)

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 7

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/16/2006 11:07:39 PM

Joisey

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

PS: I think the GM should do it for free, out of love for the game.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 8

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/17/2006 1:45:44 AM

Joisey

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

PPS: Under Fog of War variant, while phasing in the movement phase, if you come adjacent (or within range of "seeing") an enemy unit, you will see that it is there in a province and can avoid running into it if you wish, but you will not be told how many corps are in the province or of what types. You have to be adjacent to an enemy unit(s) at the start of your movement phase (or two provinces in the case of cav) to know the composition.

Pure cavalry units using the cavalry withdrawal rule will be very useful for reconaissance, as they were historically.

If your enemy puts out a "picket line" you may not have the ability to go around him. Certain fronts, such as the Austrian front with France, would be easy to block. Cossacks retain their ability to go through enemy units without initiating combat (which is not as powerful as it sounds, since the Cossack can only move by itself within home territory, and you get full info on enemy movements from your informant network on home ground already).

Just thinking out loud on how I'd do a Fog of War variant.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 9

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/17/2006 12:33:32 PM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

I wanted to play myself, and was willing to let people do their die rolls on an honor system. I've heard there are also some online die randomizers, but I don't know how they could be used to be a public system.

There is a battle simulator, here:

http://eia.xnetz.com/RotE/battle.php

It doesn't work at the moment but if someone can get hold of the source code it shouldn't be hard to fix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

Proposed Rules:

1805 Grand Campaign game

Standard Rules except:

1) No economic manipulation

Why no economic manipulation? It severely hurts the chances of the smaller nations, e.g. Spain, and also Prussia. Basically makes the game a huge punch-up favouring the French.

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 10

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/17/2006 2:39:05 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

PS: I think the GM should do it for free, out of love for the game.

You are asking someone to set up the map in a room and handle almost all the work, working daily to resolve orders so that you can make a decision in about an hour once a week and you want it all for free? I'm not saying $5 a player or so goes far but it's a nice gesture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

1805 Grand Campaign game

Standard Rules except:

1) No economic manipulation
2) Optional Rules 11.0 - 11.9.1 in effect (New Political Combinations)
3) Optional Rules 12.1.1 - 12.1.2 in effect (militia conversion & ship building location)
4) Optional Rule 12.2.1.2 in effect ( Danish/Swedish sea crossings)
5) Optional Rule 12.2.5 in effect (Proportional Naval Losses)
6) Optional Rule 12.3.2 in effect (British Training)
7) Optional Rule 12.3.3.1 in effect (cavalry superiority)
8) Optional Rule 12.3.3.2 in effect (cavalry withdrawals)
9) Optional Rule 12.3.4 in effect (Guard commitment)
10) Optional Rule 12.3.5 in effect (artillery)
11) Optional Rule 12.3.6 in effect (Proportional Land losses)
12) Optional Rule 12.3.7 in effect (Army Leader Options)
13) Optional Rule 12.3.8 in effect (detaching minor corps factors)
14) Optional Rule 12.4 in effect ( Peace limited access all subsections)
15) Optional Rule 12.7 in effect (Leader Casualties)

1805 - how are countries decided? I listed our 10 point system in another area basically used under the idea that the scenario victory points were set to be equitable. No limit runs the risk of say a 100 point bid for France, which means they start the game with no way to win but that they just wanted France. Britain can be worse since they win by default, it doesn't matter how high their bid is so long as they are good at keeping other people's down.

1] I like eco man (and I think this hurts France and Russia most. Bad start and they have no way to recover without eco)
2] 11.9.1.1 no way - while this is accurate historically for most nations the players that become obdurate do not face penalties that would have been exacted had nations really behaved this way. The "rump" idea was based on gentlemanly defeat and the lack of it is why Spain lost her King, rest is OK
3] OK
4] Include Channel crossing arrow, Britain can protect it. It was not impossible to cross the Channel if there were no opposing British warships.
5] OK
6] OK
7] OK
8] OK
9] We had a house rule that the guard could not be committed if it was impossible to break the enemy. Even at Waterloo the Guard went in because they believed they could break the British.
10] OK
11] OK
12] OK
13] OK
14] OK
15] OK
I would add in 12.8 and 12.9 (to keep this from being pro-British)

ALSO there are still some resources on the net including a bit map and counters that you can place on the map if you wish to set up a website for the game.

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 11

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/17/2006 4:23:35 PM

Joisey

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

Do you have a link for those online resources?

I've never played with economic manipulation, but would be willing to go along if a majority preferred it.

I've also never actually used the bidding process before either. I've always been able to agree on who would play which country, and I've been able to eventually play all the countries I wanted to. I'd certainly be willing to listen to your advice on tweaking the bidding process to avoid abuse.

I forgot to add a houserule for outlawing a controlling major power from destroying a minor fleet against port defenses: Only allowed if an enemy fleet is actually in the port, otherwise, it's just another form of scuttling.

If someone else wants to GM and collect money, they are welcome to do so. I prefer not having to chase people for money (although I have my own business and can take a credit card number over the phone, so if you insist

). If successful, everyone can take their turn GMing and we'd all break even in that case.

Other counter-proposals are fine, although I agree they are all anti-British.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 12

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/17/2006 10:53:25 PM

Roads

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

9] We had a house rule that the guard could not be committed if it was impossible to break the enemy. Even at Waterloo the Guard went in because they believed they could break the British.

I think a rule like this is probably a good thing. But the Young Guard was committed at Waterloo to simply hold of the Prussians on the right flank. In various other instances (Krasnoi for one) the guard was committed to get the army out of a losign battle.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 13

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/17/2006 11:15:36 PM

Joisey

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

Explain to me why someone would commit the Guard when its impossible to break the enemy, since failure to do so automatically means YOU break instead!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Roads)

Post #: 14

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/18/2006 1:13:11 AM

Joisey

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

Try emailing those guys.

We do have their gif version of the map with every province numbered to work with though. That will greatly simply move orders. Anyone interested in doing PBEM should download that mapfile.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 15

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/18/2006 2:52:24 AM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

Well Nappy told the Guard that the lines on the horizon were French reinforcements from Grouchy instead of Blucher's Prussians so they charged thinking the field was theirs and if the British broke they would have rout, when in fact they broke and Nappy made a tactical maneuver to the rear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

Explain to me why someone would commit the Guard when its impossible to break the enemy, since failure to do so automatically means YOU break instead!

Bad chit pick. If you break early you can limit your losses.

This site has much stuff:

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/html_index.html

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 16

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/18/2006 2:16:04 PM

moosinator2000

Posts: 2
Joined: 8/13/2006
From: Greensboro, NC
Status: offline

You can count me in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

Explain to me why someone would commit the Guard when its impossible to break the enemy, since failure to do so automatically means YOU break instead!

It's the third round of combat and you know you're going to break. You commit your guard to lower the ensuing pursuit. Guards are cheaper to replace than cavalry.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 17

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/18/2006 4:34:01 PM

Joisey

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

Very cool stuff at that site. Looks like the entire game is on the web.

The problem is: How can we manipulate these Gif images?

What program opens the unit symbol files on that site? I couldn't get them to open.

If we could insert unit symbols onto one of these maps, we'd be able to host the whole game electronically.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 18

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/18/2006 4:36:07 PM

Joisey

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

But wouldn't you also be engineering an even more devasting cavalry pursuit? The fewer the combat rounds, and the less your opponent's morale loss, the worse it will be.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 19

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 8/18/2006 4:37:20 PM

Joisey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: moosinator2000

You can count me in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

Explain to me why someone would commit the Guard when its impossible to break the enemy, since failure to do so automatically means YOU break instead!

It's the third round of combat and you know you're going to break. You commit your guard to lower the ensuing pursuit. Guards are cheaper to replace than cavalry.

Okay, this makes sense to me. I don't see why it should be banned.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to moosinator2000)

Post #: 20

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 9/7/2006 12:33:25 AM

Joisey

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

I've given up on setting up a PBEM game, but I found a website with a satisfactory substitute here:

http://www.lordsofconquest.com

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 21

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 9/13/2006 8:31:16 PM

Roads

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

quote:

ORIGINAL: moosinator2000

You can count me in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

Explain to me why someone would commit the Guard when its impossible to break the enemy, since failure to do so automatically means YOU break instead!

It's the third round of combat and you know you're going to break. You commit your guard to lower the ensuing pursuit. Guards are cheaper to replace than cavalry.

Okay, this makes sense to me. I don't see why it should be banned.

Well the argument is that it allows the French and Russians to get away with lousy chit picks. Obviously the tactic isn't too effective when your opponent has lots of cavalry. But if the opponent is weak in cavalry and you end up on a very bad combat table you can commit the guard to lose morale and end the battle immediately.

I think it's kind of gamey, but I don't see it as such a huge issue. A simple house rule like 'you can't commit the guard when it is impossible to break the enemy morale' takes care of the most egregious cases.

(in reply to Joisey)

Post #: 22

RE: EiA PBEM option? - 9/14/2006 6:44:10 AM

Joisey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

quote:

ORIGINAL: moosinator2000

You can count me in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey

Explain to me why someone would commit the Guard when its impossible to break the enemy, since failure to do so automatically means YOU break instead!

It's the third round of combat and you know you're going to break. You commit your guard to lower the ensuing pursuit. Guards are cheaper to replace than cavalry.

Okay, this makes sense to me. I don't see why it should be banned.

Well the argument is that it allows the French and Russians to get away with lousy chit picks. Obviously the tactic isn't too effective when your opponent has lots of cavalry. But if the opponent is weak in cavalry and you end up on a very bad combat table you can commit the guard to lose morale and end the battle immediately.

I think it's kind of gamey, but I don't see it as such a huge issue. A simple house rule like 'you can't commit the guard when it is impossible to break the enemy morale' takes care of the most egregious cases.

True, but the player that does this does pay the additional penalty of not having his guard corps for the next 5 months, and the tactical disadvantage that goes with it. It's not quite a free lunch. I'm not too exercised about it. There's historical merit to the idea that Napoleon's Imperial Guard would have sacrificed themselves to let the rest of the Army retreat had Napoleon ordered them to do so. They were fanatically loyal to him.

I'm not sure the same could be said for the Czar's Guard, however.

The Austrian, Prussian, and English Guards were probably disciplined enough to make such a self sacrifice if called on to save the rest of their army, although in game terms, those guard units can only shift one column so it might not end up saving you a round of combat at all anyway.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Roads)

Post #: 23