Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries.

 
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 >> Tech Support >> Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 2:52:23 PM   
AndrewV

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline
Playing hotseat vs myself (as a test).
England at war with France, Russia and Spain.
Russia and Spain accepting conditionals, France asking for unconditional.

When England offers to surrender to all three, I first get a pop-up reminding me that "Russia has no forces in your home nation, so you must sue all nations at war with you for peace if you wish to continue! Do you wish to continue?" (I had already specified all of three).

After clicking yes to continue, I get told that "Uncondtional [sic] peace offered by France. Accept?" If I click no, and end the phase, then at the end of the diplomacy round, England is still at war with all three. (ie no surrender). I expected that that should have resulted in a conditional surrender to both Spain and Russia.

Is this a deliberate change, or a bug?
Post #: 1
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 5:24:57 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewV

Playing hotseat vs myself (as a test).
England at war with France, Russia and Spain.
Russia and Spain accepting conditionals, France asking for unconditional.

When England offers to surrender to all three, I first get a pop-up reminding me that "Russia has no forces in your home nation, so you must sue all nations at war with you for peace if you wish to continue! Do you wish to continue?" (I had already specified all of three).

After clicking yes to continue, I get told that "Uncondtional [sic] peace offered by France. Accept?" If I click no, and end the phase, then at the end of the diplomacy round, England is still at war with all three. (ie no surrender). I expected that that should have resulted in a conditional surrender to both Spain and Russia.

Is this a deliberate change, or a bug?



When Britain opted out of France’s unconditional terms, the program cancelled the surrender procedure, as Britain no longer met the requirements of 6.4.2. (i.e. Britain must surrender to ALL)

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to AndrewV)
Post #: 2
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 6:35:51 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
That's not correct, Modanman. The rule actually specifies that the nation must "sue for peace", not "surrender". The game should have taken the conditionals offered, while rejecting the unconditional.

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 3
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 6:37:06 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
must be a EIH thing then, as the original boardgame, dont refer to it cancelling it like that.

4.4.2 Suing for peace.
you can only sue for peace seperately those that have troops within your nation border, unless you sue all.

Also if there is 3 foes, 2 asking conditional and one unconditional, then you dont have to accept the unconditionally, that war will just continue, the others will go into effect, no where in the rules, does it say, that it will cancel all 3, if unconditional is not accepted.

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 4
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 7:28:41 PM   
AndrewV

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline
quote:

When Britain opted out of France’s unconditional terms, the program cancelled the surrender procedure, as Britain no longer met the requirements of 6.4.2. (i.e. Britain must surrender to ALL)


6.4.2 (quoting from the pdf version of the manual, which also my matches my recollection of the tabletop EiA rules).

quote:

A major power may not sue for peace to another major power that does not have forces within the suing home nation’s borders unless, at the same time, it sues for peace to all major powers with which it is at war. When a major power sues for peace, the opponent must then offer a formal peace, either a “conditional”, which must be accepted, or “unconditional”, which may be accepted only if the suing player desires.


I interpret that as "I'm required to offer a formal surrender for peace to all major powers I'm at war with. When Spain and Russia say conditional, I must accept, and they get their peace regardless of whether I accept France's response of unconditional."

Even if they all say unconditional I should still get to choose which I will accept (any desired combination between all and none), so that England can split a coalition before they actually get into the home isles. (And if Napoleon gets things wrong, he too, can also can be looking to split a Prussian/Austrian alliance before they actually get to French home nation.)

As an aside, a potential nightmare scenario for English players. If he is going to have to surrender he must surrender before an enemy can take Wales/Scotland. Otherwise he's faced with the nightmare of Napoleon 'lending' a couple of corps to Spain. Spain transporting these 'Spanish' controlled troops to Spanish owned Wales/Scotland. When he has enough troops, Napoleon reclaims his 'lent' corps, adds Davout, and forages his way to London.

I haven't actually tried that, but as I understand the lending rules, that should work. Note that under traditional EiA rules, there was a provision (option?) allowing the Brits to intercept the Spanish as they transported the French Corps. Is there some provision to enable the Brits to counteract such a strategy after Wales/Scotland is in enemy hands.

Andrew

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 5
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 8:05:16 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Okay, sorry guys, I see where I wrote that up incorrectly.

The problem occurred when the player clicked “No” to the unconditional surrender terms, the program opted out of the procedure. (i.e. took a directive not to surrender).

We will fix this.

Thanks

Richard


< Message edited by Monadman -- 12/21/2007 8:10:35 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AndrewV)
Post #: 6
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 9:51:16 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewV

Note that under traditional EiA rules, there was a provision (option?) allowing the Brits to intercept the Spanish as they transported the French Corps. Is there some provision to enable the Brits to counteract such a strategy after Wales/Scotland is in enemy hands.

Andrew



Andrew,

In the first patch, we have added the ability for one major power to attack a neutral or allied major power if they are transporting enemy forces. If by interception; the declaration of war is automatic and if by initiation; the phasing major power has the ability to choose whether to declaration war and attack or ignore the transporting fleets.

Still no loaned fleets yet, but perhaps by the second patch there will be.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to AndrewV)
Post #: 7
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 11:06:09 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewV

Note that under traditional EiA rules, there was a provision (option?) allowing the Brits to intercept the Spanish as they transported the French Corps. Is there some provision to enable the Brits to counteract such a strategy after Wales/Scotland is in enemy hands.

Andrew



Andrew,

In the first patch, we have added the ability for one major power to attack a neutral or allied major power if they are transporting enemy forces. If by interception; the declaration of war is automatic and if by initiation; the phasing major power has the ability to choose whether to declaration war and attack or ignore the transporting fleets.

Still no loaned fleets yet, but perhaps by the second patch there will be.

Richard


You might want to check the old rules again. I'm doing this from membory, but I believe a major (A) could attack ships from another major (B) transporting factors of a third power (C). A was allowed to attack C's ships (including the political points for winning or losing), but did not have to declare war. However, he had the option of declaring war. I can't recall if he could declare war while in an enforced peace.

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 8
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/21/2007 11:33:27 PM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

You might want to check the old rules again. I'm doing this from membory, but I believe a major (A) could attack ships from another major (B) transporting factors of a third power (C). A was allowed to attack C's ships (including the political points for winning or losing), but did not have to declare war. However, he had the option of declaring war. I can't recall if he could declare war while in an enforced peace.


Jimmer,

Yes, we were aware of that, but the program will purposely deviate (get use to that word ) and force a declaration of war.

Richard


_____________________________


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 9
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/22/2007 12:12:15 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
hmm, shouldnt it be:

A can attack ships from B even if at peace, if B´s fleet are carrying troops from C who currently are at war with A.

I dont understand why its necissary for A to declare war however. This seems to be quite a significant change from the original game where B would have to bear the cost of a DOW if he wanted war. I think that this change and implementation is potentially game unbalancing but its a lot better than currently.

It would probably make more sense to force B to declare war or alternativly if the DOW is free or at least very heavily rebated (strong casus belli) at least if the attack is made by interception (for GB not to attack a fleet carrying hostile troops in landing distance would be suicide and if GB this way was forced to do several DOWs it would be possible to force her into Fiasco Zone) - if a war declaration is necissary from the game engines point of view.


(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 10
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/22/2007 4:06:41 AM   
Monadman


Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

hmm, shouldnt it be:

A can attack ships from B even if at peace, if B´s fleet are carrying troops from C who currently are at war with A.




Yes, and that’s the way it will be in EiANW, but with deviations: [A] will not be allowed to attack [B] without a declaration of war and there will be no restrictions applied to the declaration.

Richard



_____________________________


(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 11
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/23/2007 7:06:03 AM   
yammahoper

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline
Here is a weird one.  I forced an unconditional against Tu as GB who was also at war with Ru and Sp, but Tu did not surrender to them.  Tu would only take a one time pp hit if she surrendered to all three at once. 

Eventually Tu was forced to surrender to both Ru and Sp, though since Tu did not lose any territory, I assume they were conditionals.

Do Majors give consideration to how well they can continue to fight if they surrender to one nation unconditionally but remain at war against two they major powers?

yamma

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 12
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/24/2007 2:41:44 AM   
delatbabel


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Yes, and that’s the way it will be in EiANW, but with deviations: [A] will not be allowed to attack [B] without a declaration of war and there will be no restrictions applied to the declaration.

Richard



That is not the way it should be. A should be allowed to attack B if it is carrying corps from C (C and A are at war), without a declaration of war. This is clearly what the rule in the board game states. A declaration of war in the board game costs 3 PP, in EiANW it costs 4 PP, and it is not always desirable to make a declaration of war to sink one fleet.

My standard policy, in EiA playing as GB, is that Spanish / Turkish fleets in the mediterranean carrying French corps will be attacked. Otherwise the French overrun Africa very quickly. The Turks don't really want a war with GB or vice-versa, but the Turks (with their small fleets) need to be warned not to carry French corps or they are at risk of being sunk.

Playing it any other way unbalances the game.

Del


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Monadman)
Post #: 13
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/24/2007 3:05:07 AM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Del:

We must automate the DOW and force it to happen in EiANW since the entire engine keys combat off of nations that are AT WAR. That is where it is for now. I would like to know, how does this effect balance? I'm open to change but I need to understand the ramifications...



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 14
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/24/2007 4:21:03 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Yes, it does affect play balance.

I'm going by the board game numbers here -- I'm obviously more familiar with that than EiANW.

In the board game, assuming that France has committed reasonable numbers of ships to the North Sea / Bay of Biscay ports, GB can usually spare about 1/3 of its fleet to the Mediterranean. That's about 40 ships. Spain will usually have that number or more there, but the Spanish fleet (if it sets to sea) is vulnerable to a quick attack from the GB home fleet. Turkey has 21 ships, not usually enough to go toe to toe with GB in the mediterranean, unless it gets help from France and/or Spain. Even with just the French mediterranean fleet (which often isn't much), the Turks will have a hard time going toe to toe with GB in just naval battles -- and since Spain and Turkey don't always see eye to eye as far as the division of African nations is concerned, the Turks usually have Spain to contend with at least in the Western Med.

The way that Turkey can assist France is to transport French corps about the place, since France and GB are usually at war, and Turkey and GB are often not. However, in the case that the French fleet has been neutralised and/or blockaded, Turkey has to go it alone against the GB Mediterranean fleet.

If the threat of Turkish fleets being attacked and sunk by GB fleets exists, i.e. if it transports French corps and the game rules allow that to happen, then Turkey will usually not risk transporting French corps. It costs ships that the Turks can't afford to rebuild, and it costs PPs which are always at a premium. Nelson and a single 30 ship fleet can usually take on the entire Turkish navy (often only 1 or 2 fleets) and win every time, and so each time that happens it's +2PP GB, -1PP Turkey, and a French corps that either dies or returns to port.

If GB has to declare war on Turkey to gain the +2PP then GB will probably not do so, because it's -4PP to declare war, so it's net -2PP for GB. That pretty much removes the threat of Turkish fleets being attacked, and therefore allows the French a much more free hand in the Mediterranean, as it can usually rely on (often neutral) Turkish fleets to transport its corps.

I think that there are a number of rule changes in EiANW that unbalance the game in favour of France and against GB -- the allied fleets bug of course being the major culprit, but also the channel crossing arrow, and the limitations on combined movement & mechanisms for loaning money. This is probably the most insidious however because it removes the ability for GB to use its naval power to keep France's potential allies at bay, and prevent them actively assisting French invasions of the Italian and African coasts. I can even see a situation where French corps were transported from Marseilles by Turkish fleets to the Austrian Adriatic ports, which in reality would have been ludicrous (especially during the years when Nelson was stationed in the Mediterranean) -- the brits were notorious for "inspecting" neutral shipping, and while they didn't always press-gang all of the crews of vessels suspected of carrying contraband, even neutral (often American) ships carrying cargo suspected of being destined for French ports were boarded and taken as prizes without question, and even a few French soldiers found hidden on board could result in ships being sunk and/or officers being arrested or hung as spies.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that the board game doesn't go far enough -- it doesn't allow you to attack (without a declaration of war) neutral fleets carrying depots that are supplying French corps, which I am aware of happening at least once during the Mediterranean campaign. Even neutral ships carrying "contraband" supplies to French ports were often attacked and/or sunk without a state of war existing.

If you have to make a declaration of war to attack neutral shipping carrying enemy contraband, at least remove the PP cost. Possibly I would even increase the size of the GB starting fleet to reintroduce that element of threat against neutral shipping potentially aiding the French -- it appears to me that in EiANW, once GB has put down enough ships to blockade the French and Dutch fleets, it doesn't really have enough ships left to effectively patrol the Mediterranean, which doesn't truly represent the military situation in either 1805 or 1792 (and certainly not post-Trafalgar, when it probably had sufficient naval overkill to blockade every port on the planet and keep up reasonable sized patrols).




_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 15
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/24/2007 5:23:23 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
Wow you and I have completely different views on this. The game is much more skewed to Britian's favor. Knocking out naval combined movement has made sure that Britain can eliminate their enemies virtually at will. After the first patch Britain will rule the seas. Your analysis of the cost effectiveness of Britain declaring war is flawed because you did not take into account the EiH navies (and I know you said you weren't but we need to talk about the game in front of us if you are going to claim unbalance). Britain is far stronger under EiH than under EiA and always has the option of doing pre-existing DOWs on all major navies (FR/SP/TU/RU) and having TU and RU understand that you just want to reduce their fleets to token forces, thus eliminating your concern over the PPs at least at the start (once the navies are defeated not many troops are bing moved by sea any more besides yours).  Sinking a navy and destroying a French corps is well worth 2pp. The crossing arrow has been used in every game of EiA, etc. I have ever played.  It doesn't take much to lock it closed but it does require Britain to tie up their fleet for a few rounds and focus on eliminating the enemy navies, which is what it should be doing any way.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 16
RE: Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. - 12/24/2007 1:41:51 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
i think that is why i prefer the 1792 game, half ship casulties along with advanced fleet rules (chips and 3 rounds) even if england is the major force in ships, they never seem really to be able to wipe out the other ship nations, at least not when we played it and the other nations while at war with britains, took more naval chances as well, as they know combat is simultanies and not just the england brings 100 vs 50 and almost always hit first :)

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Simultaneous surrender to multiple countries. 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

1.781