What do you consider "gamey" tactics?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What do you consider "gamey" tactics?

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 >> What do you consider "gamey" tactics?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/27/2008 7:06:08 PM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

I am curious what others consider to be gamey / unsportsmanlike / unrealistic plays in EiANW.

A few comes to mind for me based on very limited experience with EiA. Please correct me if I have something wrong as well as posting other "exploits" that you would prefer not to see in at PBEM game.

1. Suiciding a minor nation fleet.
2. Declaring war on a minor and doing nothing to conquer the minor because an Ally got control of it.
3. Example: France and Austria at not at war. Austria DoW on minor X. GB gets control. France being at war with GB mpves into minor X and conquers it leavng Austria cheated.
4. Not placing atleast 1 factor in a minors capitol as a help to the Major that is attacking the minor.

Post #: 1

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/27/2008 7:22:48 PM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I am curious what others consider to be gamey / unsportsmanlike / unrealistic plays in EiANW.

A few comes to mind for me based on very limited experience with EiA. Please correct me if I have something wrong as well as posting other "exploits" that you would prefer not to see in at PBEM game.

1. Suiciding a minor nation fleet.
2. Declaring war on a minor and doing nothing to conquer the minor because an Ally got control of it.
3. Example: France and Austria at not at war. Austria DoW on minor X. GB gets control. France being at war with GB mpves into minor X and conquers it leavng Austria cheated.
4. Not placing atleast 1 factor in a minors capitol as a help to the Major that is attacking the minor.

Some of those are rather hard to do with game mecanics/programming.

But its not unheard of to use houserules in games, though find players who can agree/accept upon the same, is a must.
Many things can be abused. Not just minors.

How about you lend your army to your ally and he just let them forcemarch and die in high numbers, during winter ?
I imagine thats a gamequiter.

Things like that cant be coded.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 2

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/27/2008 7:35:14 PM

Bearcat2

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I am curious what others consider to be gamey / unsportsmanlike / unrealistic plays in EiANW.

A few comes to mind for me based on very limited experience with EiA. Please correct me if I have something wrong as well as posting other "exploits" that you would prefer not to see in at PBEM game.

1. Suiciding a minor nation fleet.
2. Declaring war on a minor and doing nothing to conquer the minor because an Ally got control of it.
3. Example: France and Austria at not at war. Austria DoW on minor X. GB gets control. France being at war with GB mpves into minor X and conquers it leavng Austria cheated.
4. Not placing atleast 1 factor in a minors capitol as a help to the Major that is attacking the minor.

Our rules on this:
1. Not allowed by an ally; ok by an enemy of the MP fleet.
2. You have to move into any minor that you declared war on, unless blocked by a MP land move that you are currently at war with.
3. ok; thats the chance you take when you declare war.
4. Depends, Rus/Sw war, who puts a garrison in Stockholm if Russia can't get to it[more often they put 1 in Malmo to protect fleet and leave Stockholm for reinf placement? Tu/Egypt war - you can put your corp in the blocking area and that would be ok - Syria ? - the rest you put at least 1 in the capital.

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 3

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/27/2008 10:18:15 PM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

1, 2 and 3 are pretty related. My leaning is that the war should be confined to the minor - vs. declaring major if the one running the minor didn't DOW -- so a non-supporting owner shouldn't use the minor against any enemy who didn't DOW the minor. Suicidal fleet runs seem somehow inappropriate in cases where the invading force has already marched in and doesn't really need a fleet's support -- e.g. if Spain marches into Portugal, would the Portugese fleet realy drive itself against the Spanish fleet (and die) knowing full well that it can't stop the overland march... and that if they don't fight, the Spanish will let them live? Might be interesting to know if there's historical precedent. Scuttling in port seems more realistic, at least.

DOW'ing a minor and not bothering to fulfill at least carries a -1 PP cost. Ugly, but there's sort of a built-in cost here... and there may be legitimate reasons for suddenly dropping its priority, like a major choosing to DOW you at the same time. OTOH, a minor with corps should make some effort to defend itself, so if controlled by a player, he should deploy in some manner that doesn't throw it. Like not setting up the Portugese troops all in Oporto and letting Lisbon be a walk-in... since there's no reason to think that Oporto is more useful for defending Lisbon than Lisbon itself. But if somebody wants to risk leaving Cairo relatively open for a blocking position in the Sinai, even with a risk of a landing at the mouth of the Nile, got no problem with that. One issue: what if major claims to not have depots to spare, and lets the minor starve? Of course, this requires Judgement of Humans, if the minor isn't AI-controlled.

Using spare depots to block somebody else's depots seems somewhat cheesy, when you're not at war with the one being blocked. Especially if the blocking depot isn't supplying anybody -- like it's just sitting on a heavy fleet in order to block somebody else from using invasion supply, or if you've taken forced access and are spamming depots on the victim's favored supply sources. Difficult to do in most situations due to depot limits.

Taking peace conditions with little effect (e.g. demanding that Eugene be exiled, or demanding provinces but not naming any) just to block others in a suing-for-peace-with-multiple-victors situations seems a bit dubious -- especially if someone's asking for nothing. Asking for Eugene to be exiled should be allowed, probably (insane or arbitrary sovereigns not completely unheard-of...); saying "scuttle two fleets" without naming fleets, just to block others from scuttling fleets, seems rather iffy. Especially if the person doing this DOW'd only very late in the war and contributed nothing to the victors...

(in reply to Bearcat2)

Post #: 4

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/28/2008 5:14:32 PM

KenClark

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Something that came up in my recent game was similar to this, in that the Portuguese Fleet, which was controlled by France, was used to kill my (GB) 1-ship Channel blocker fleet (all the French Fleets were blockaded). I did get some relief when the next turn I vapourized the Portuguese fleet, but it's not a good way to handle these things. I could also have conquered Portugal from France.

Given the way the game works, this was a legal but imo gamey move. In the board game we played it that the Portuguese fleet could only attack Spain, and no other nation could attack the Portuguese. I wish there was a way this game could do that also.

The "easy victory cheese monkeying" with minors was done a lot with the board game too, but was the subject of much mocking. Very similar to the exchange of PPs by trading fort battles.

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 5

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/28/2008 11:00:32 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I am curious what others consider to be gamey / unsportsmanlike / unrealistic plays in EiANW.

A few comes to mind for me based on very limited experience with EiA. Please correct me if I have something wrong as well as posting other "exploits" that you would prefer not to see in at PBEM game.

1. Suiciding a minor nation fleet.
2. Declaring war on a minor and doing nothing to conquer the minor because an Ally got control of it.
3. Example: France and Austria at not at war. Austria DoW on minor X. GB gets control. France being at war with GB mpves into minor X and conquers it leavng Austria cheated.
4. Not placing atleast 1 factor in a minors capitol as a help to the Major that is attacking the minor.

1) What's the problem with this? Why on earth would anybody even bother doing anything else?

And, it's not suicide. It's "Making them pay" for their declaration of war. Depending on who has control, this can really be done well, too. For example, in my current game (as GB), Spain mentioned that I made a "suicide run" with the Portuguese fleet. He had failed to split his fleets up, and he also failed to place a corps in Spain that could move overland into Portugal. He had placed all his eggs in one basket. So, (going first) I blockaded the Spanish in their own port. The odds were low (7 in 36), but if he failed to break out of port, I would OWN Portugal. As it turned out, HE rolled the 6 instead of me, and the rest is history.

2) Perhaps if it were phrased another way:

"Oh, YOU got control of it, nice ally? I didn't realize they were your friend. OK, I'll leave them alone."

Does that sound a little better?

3) Again, what's the problem? Tell your "friend" GB not to roll for it if you don't want France getting control. This is actually in GB's best interests, anyhow.

4) I would say this is a bit low. Also, quite stupid, since it guarantees an early exit to the war. The whole point of taking control is to gain a few PP, if possible. And, the only time it matters is during the econ phase. So, exiting the war early nearly guarantees not getting even the base PP for control during econ.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 6

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 1:41:41 AM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

Thank you for the replies - thats exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for.

@Bresh
I certainly concur that some of these cannot reasonably be coded against - but needs to be houseruled instead. An issue with that is that each game takes so very long so simply blacklisting someone that ignores a houserule may have cost 6 other players a long time but that cannot be helped.
Good point about the abusiveness of the loan corps feature, I had not consider that but its certainly obvious now you point to it.

@Termite2
1. I am not sure I understand what you mean by your reply. Lets say that Spain declares war on Portugal and that GB gets control. GB is at war with France but not at war with Spain. Is it ok for the GB player to smash the Portugeese fleet against a French port? Is it ok to smash it against a Spanish port?
2. Sounds reasonable though I suppose curcumstances may arise to make not moving in alright - but its rare.
3. I suppose so. Its not a major issue anyway.
4. I agree fully. My point was "not to setup as to give the minor away" as thats unrealistic in terms of what the minor would reasonably do.

@Grognot
All good points thank you. I like your view that the minor should be confined in its use (for a limited time anyway).
Good points about depot and peace conditions - smelly cheese indeed.

@KenClark
Sounds similar to what Gronot is aiming at. A minor probably should be limited in use and in who can attack it for a couple of months when DoWed upon to limit the silliness

@Jimmer
1. I would not call your move suicide - far from it. A suicide move would have been if you sent the Portugeese fleet against the harbor guns somewhere in France or Spain with the sole purpose of killing off as many Portugeese ships as possible to deny their use to anyone else. Would you think that such a move would just be "making them pay"?
2. I suppose you could say that though I admit I view it differently. You are talking about a minor that was neutral and hence would not actively have joined your ally except because you declared war. Now you lapse the war and suddenly the minor is controlled by your ally and friendly to you. A more reasonable outcome of such a non-war would have been for the minor to return to neutrality.
3. Aye, fair enough. I retract that one as an issue as diplomacy can avoid it altogether.
4. I would not say that the only point to taking control is to earn PP. Another reason to take control could very well be to help your ally get an easy conquest of an otherwise hard to take minor - thats where the silliness lies. Controlling a minor because it is being attacked should somehow mean that you use its forces to somewhat try to defend the minor if at all possible.

More comments are always appreciated so do post if you have more examples of gamey plays.

< Message edited by JanSorensen -- 4/29/2008 1:42:57 AM >

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 7

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 4:05:01 AM

BruceSinger

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I am curious what others consider to be gamey / unsportsmanlike / unrealistic plays in EiANW.

A few comes to mind for me based on very limited experience with EiA. Please correct me if I have something wrong as well as posting other "exploits" that you would prefer not to see in at PBEM game.

1. Suiciding a minor nation fleet.
2. Declaring war on a minor and doing nothing to conquer the minor because an Ally got control of it.
3. Example: France and Austria at not at war. Austria DoW on minor X. GB gets control. France being at war with GB mpves into minor X and conquers it leavng Austria cheated.
4. Not placing atleast 1 factor in a minors capitol as a help to the Major that is attacking the minor.

In the original EIA game, #3 could not happen. The Major Power(MP) who won control of the minor only "Played" the minor country until the war lapsed or it was conqured. However, if you were the MP who won control, you had the option to declare war on the other MP. If you did declare war, then control of the Minor country passed to MP then. If you did not decalre war, control only passed if war lapsed between the minor country and the original MP that originally DW. If you

Nothing sucks more than forcing France to Surrender. Then while you are picking up the uncontrolled minors and someone at war with France wins control and France moved into it before you have a chance. In the EIA, France could only do that if they declared MP that declared war. Since they were in enforced peace, they could not do that.

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 8

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 3:37:57 PM

Bearcat2

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

@Termite2
1. I am not sure I understand what you mean by your reply. Lets say that Spain declares war on Portugal and that GB gets control. GB is at war with France but not at war with Spain. Is it ok for the GB player to smash the Portugeese fleet against a French port? Is it ok to smash it against a Spanish port?

If Spain is allied with France then a suicide move by Br controlled Portugese navy is allowed against either, if Spain by itself, a suicide run against Sp fleets only. Your taking a VP penalty, that was considered enough for our group.

< Message edited by Termite2 -- 4/29/2008 3:39:27 PM >

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 9

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 4:41:25 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Here are the house rules we adopted in our "Napoleon's Options" game to minimize gamesmanship, in case anyone is interested.

Dardanelles Restriction: Unless Constantinople is besieged, you can
not sail into or through the Sea of Marmara (the Straits) or blockade
Constantinople. Owner of Constantinople excepted, of course.

Any controlling country cannot use fleet/corps against any country NOT declaring on minor (or at war with minor) until war is lapsed or minor conquered.

You can not attack a minor that you did not declare war on. Example 1: France and UK are at war. Spain Dows on Portugal. France gets control of Portugal. Britain can not attack Portuguese forces unless War between Spain and Portugal lapses and France gains full control. Example Two: Britain and Russia are at war with France. Britain DOWs against Denmark. France gains control. Russia can not attack Denmark unless war between Denmark and UK lapses and France gains full control of Denmark. Similarly, you can not use DoW acquired minors to take action other than defending against their aggressor until the initial war has lapsed. NOTE: I added this part for clarification --Varick

Cannot declare with intention of lapsing to give to another.

Cannot scuttle controlled nation fleets if 0% chance of winning. You must use the fleet with self-preservation in mind.
Naval engagement involving minors fleets must, where possible, involve and equal number of controlling major nation ships. This house rule comes from attempts to "run the guns of a port". For example, Spain and the UK are at war. Spain DoWs on Portugal and Britain gains control. Britain may not attack Spanish ports unless an equal number or greater British ships accompany the attacking Portuguese and losses are proportional.

Loaning corps: may only loan corps entering battle if both loaner and loanee are at war with ALL of opponents; otherwise, maximum of 10 factors or two Turkish Corps. No restriction on loaning allied corps for moves only; Point A to Point B, no battle involved.

Proportional losses at land and sea. Engagements should take losses from different nations according to proportion committed. Cavalry, guard, artillery, guerrillas, militia, Cossacks, freikorps, and feudals to be exceptions to this rule. Cavalry pursuits should be proportional too except for feudal/cossacks/freikorps.

No forwarding other's e-mails. You can write whatever you like someone else said, but the forwarding of e-mails w/out permission is not allowed Reason: Makes to too easy for players to compromise diplomatic correspondence and discourages creativity.

The defender in a multi-corps battle must send his defense choice to a trusted ally. Reason: prevents cheating. Yes, this does occur and I have, sadly, seen it happen.

Proposed rule that did not pass
Britain must move first or last in the naval phase and can not move in the middle onf the naval phase. Maybe moot after naval forces can be loaned, but until then there is no other way for a collation to form a fleet to engage a British naval hegemon.

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 10

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 5:22:41 PM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

Mardonius

Thank you very much for posting those house rules. They certainly make sense to me.

I had been wondering how easy it was to cheat in this game but didnt want to ask before having tried PBEM myself. Aside from cheating with chit choice what other cheats are possible?
- Do battles replay the same concerning dice or can the defender cheat by redoing a battle till the dice favor him for example?
- Interceptions. I may be off due to not having tried PBEM yet but it would seem that the moving playing can cheat by replaying his turn. If the dice are rerolled he may keep trying till interception fails. If the dice are not rerolled he may attempt to move and simply redo the turn without doing the move if it would result in an interception.
I am sure there are other things. Really, any time that you get information during a turn and have the ability to redo your moves its open to cheating.

Mind, I know that having faith in your opponents playing honestly is sometimes the only way to play but still its obviously better if cheating isnt possible. Heck, if cheating is too easy I would be unhappy if I had too much luck at a crucial moment because my opponent my be cautious of my cheating.

I know - this is somewhat hijacking the thread - but only somewhat.

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 11

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 5:24:29 PM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2
If Spain is allied with France then a suicide move by Br controlled Portugese navy is allowed against either, if Spain by itself, a suicide run against Sp fleets only. Your taking a VP penalty, that was considered enough for our group.

Ok, thank you for clarifying. I am not sure I agree that the VP loss is enough to warrent being able to suicide a minor fleet but I readily admit that it may be seen either way.

(in reply to Bearcat2)

Post #: 12

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 5:30:13 PM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceSinger

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
3. Example: France and Austria at not at war. Austria DoW on minor X. GB gets control. France being at war with GB mpves into minor X and conquers it leavng Austria cheated.

In the original EIA game, #3 could not happen. The Major Power(MP) who won control of the minor only "Played" the minor country until the war lapsed or it was conqured. However, if you were the MP who won control, you had the option to declare war on the other MP. If you did declare war, then control of the Minor country passed to MP then. If you did not decalre war, control only passed if war lapsed between the minor country and the original MP that originally DW. If you

Nothing sucks more than forcing France to Surrender. Then while you are picking up the uncontrolled minors and someone at war with France wins control and France moved into it before you have a chance. In the EIA, France could only do that if they declared MP that declared war. Since they were in enforced peace, they could not do that.

Does anyone know why this is changed in EiANW?

(in reply to BruceSinger)

Post #: 13

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 6:14:44 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceSinger

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
3. Example: France and Austria at not at war. Austria DoW on minor X. GB gets control. France being at war with GB mpves into minor X and conquers it leavng Austria cheated.

In the original EIA game, #3 could not happen. The Major Power(MP) who won control of the minor only "Played" the minor country until the war lapsed or it was conqured. However, if you were the MP who won control, you had the option to declare war on the other MP. If you did declare war, then control of the Minor country passed to MP then. If you did not decalre war, control only passed if war lapsed between the minor country and the original MP that originally DW. If you

Nothing sucks more than forcing France to Surrender. Then while you are picking up the uncontrolled minors and someone at war with France wins control and France moved into it before you have a chance. In the EIA, France could only do that if they declared MP that declared war. Since they were in enforced peace, they could not do that.

Does anyone know why this is changed in EiANW?

In EIA, allies of the major declaring war could not roll for control of the minor being declared upon.

But, that's HOW it changed. As to why, I can only speculate: They perhaps didn't notice what a difference it would make.

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 4/29/2008 6:15:42 PM >

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 14

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 6:24:44 PM

Jimmer

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

Regarding suiciding of fleets:

During this era, GB frequently "explained" to major powers that they were allowed a certain sized armada. Those that grew too large were threatened, damaged, or destroyed. In the case of Spain, they were effectively neutralized.

In my opinion, it is playing GB correctly to automatically suicide minor fleets that come into her possession (that are expected to leave possession); That's the whole point of rolling for them. It would be dereliction of duty NOT to destroy those ships when given the chance.

However: If, say, Spain declared war on Portugal, suiciding them on FRENCH fleets would not be proper (IMO). They should be suicided (if that term can be used) against Spanish ships (in this case).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 15

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 9:00:58 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Hello Jimmer:

You are certainly correct that Britain had a distinct interest in limiting other nation's fleets. I would differ with you in saying that it is correct for GB to suicide minor fleets. There is no historical example of this. They often cooperated with minor fleets, in the Med particularly (Portugal and Naples). Yes, they did attack Denmark but that was an attack, not a suicide move.

I guess the overriding rule for minor powers for me is one of reasonability. Would a reasonable commander acting in defense of his nation (the minor power) act in such a fashion? If yes, it is allowed. If not, we disallow it.

best
Mardonius

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 16

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/29/2008 10:09:43 PM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Jimmer:

You are certainly correct that Britain had a distinct interest in limiting other nation's fleets. I would differ with you in saying that it is correct for GB to suicide minor fleets. There is no historical example of this. They often cooperated with minor fleets, in the Med particularly (Portugal and Naples). Yes, they did attack Denmark but that was an attack, not a suicide move.

I guess the overriding rule for minor powers for me is one of reasonability. Would a reasonable commander acting in defense of his nation (the minor power) act in such a fashion? If yes, it is allowed. If not, we disallow it.

best
Mardonius

Actually about the bombing of Copenhagen.

GB did not DOW Denmark, but they came, and demanded the fleet. So it would not be used by the France.

The main Danish army was deployed at its southern border to protect against any hostilities from France.
So all the brits had to fight was farmers and citizens, along with a few soldiers, around 13000 men, most untrained.

The Brits brought 21 line ships, 9 frigats, 37 other battleships, a transport fleet of aprox 380 ships with around 30000 trained men.

At first the danes wouldnt turn their fleet over to GB.
So the Brits started bombing. Denmark finally surendered, and the brits got the fleet turned over. 18 line ships, 15 frigats, 7 briggs, 23 canon-boats and a few other ships.

As a result of this. Denmark joined Napoleon.

One Danish ship of the line had escaped beeing turned over, since it was in Norway at the time.
But it was later burned down after a fight at sea with some british ships.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 4/29/2008 10:17:25 PM >

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 17

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/30/2008 12:06:41 AM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Jimmer:

You are certainly correct that Britain had a distinct interest in limiting other nation's fleets. I would differ with you in saying that it is correct for GB to suicide minor fleets. There is no historical example of this. They often cooperated with minor fleets, in the Med particularly (Portugal and Naples). Yes, they did attack Denmark but that was an attack, not a suicide move.

I guess the overriding rule for minor powers for me is one of reasonability. Would a reasonable commander acting in defense of his nation (the minor power) act in such a fashion? If yes, it is allowed. If not, we disallow it.

best
Mardonius

You are phrasing the question in a way that makes one answer less palatable. Try the same question this way:

Picture a reasonable commander, knowing that a hostile foreign power intends on using the forces at that commander's disposal against a friend and ally. What should he do?

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 18

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/30/2008 4:45:29 AM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Hi Jimmer

Good point. As a follow on point of clarification, I was looking from the deck of the minor power's ship, vice that of the major powers when asking your or my question.

In the campaigns that I am in, most of the minor power restrictions go away once "full control" (i.e. the war has lapsed, or a free state is controlled its forces built by the controlling Major Power) go away. Only solo suicide moves are prohibited.

best

Mardonius

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 19

RE: What do you consider "gamey" tactics? - 4/30/2008 6:41:41 PM

Jimmer

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

Perhaps implementing the old game's rule might help some of these situations: Allies of the major power declaring war cannot "roll" for control. This includes minors which are influenced by that major power, even though he would otherwise automatically gain control.

Minors which have an ally relationship with a major shouldn't need this restriction, because the other power is already forced to break the alliance when war is declared.

NOTE: ANY restriction like this would have to be carefully done. There is an order to the diplomacy phase. If major A successfully gains influence with a minor, and, at the "same time", his ally declares war on it, this situation will pop up when the original power does not wish it. I would recommend that the declaration of war automatically be negated, with no loss of PP, when this happens. It's one of those computer meta-game issues.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 20

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> What do you consider "gamey" tactics?

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

0.812

Slitherine

What do you consider "gamey" tactics?