Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

During the diplomacy and/or reinforcement step I wanted to set my battle plans for my two corps to "withdraw" because the French were going to squish them. Since they were "in the city" (i.e. beseigning the cities they were on), I couldn't actually give them the default "withdraw" order that I wanted to, but I could, cleverly, give them the options to "sortie or surrender" if the French broke into the cities (which, of course, I am beseiging). I was able to move them "out" of the city (in the reinforcement phase?) and then give them the default orders, and then was able to move them back "into" the city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

Some of these UI problems are really fundamental to the game. How am I supposed to plan an attack after screening off a major stack (and losing a PP because the trivial battle option is not implemented, another major design flaw)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
I don't understand why you think this is a bug. The rules are very explicit: You can only pick withdraw during a field combat (or, set it as a standing order for field combats). If you are in the city, you can't possibly have a field combat. The only possible combat is a siege combat.

There is no possibility of "withdraw"ing from a besieged city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


Where did you get this idea?

If you have a corps in the open field, then you will always lose 1 PP if you lose a battle. Period.

In the EIA board game, two powers could agree to make a field combat be a trivial combat. However, that has not been implemented in the computer version, because it would have been too complicated to have the players ask the question of each other before combat. Also, I can't recall if there were PP gained/lost for trivial combats that were made trivial by agreement or not. Someone would have to look that up.

But, the game certainly doesn't have an error in it regarding THIS problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

I am talking about my corps which is BESEIGING another city, occupied by an enemy garrison. If that corps gets attacked by an enemy corps which moves into the land area, it is a field combat (or limited field combat if the garrison helps out). I want to be able to tell my corps what to do in that case.

Clearly, when a BESIEGING (not BESEIGED) corps is given orders, the order to surrender is silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

There is an optional rule in EiA which says that if a field comabt is at a 5:1 force ratio or greater that the battle is treated as a trivial battle. Trivial battles do not cause any PP changes. This is not a "choice" by the players, which is a separate option, which I agree is not necessary in the PBEM implementation that we currently have.

The 5:1 optional rule allows for what we call "screening corps" which typically have 1-2 factors in them and prevent movement of large stacks, since any corps counter has to stop when entering an area which contains another corps (unless that corps has retreated inside the city as implemented in this game). This strategy is key to avoiding "superstacking" where a country's main army stacks in one gigantic stack and runs around squishing things. What an opponent would do is "screen" the giant stack from being able to move by surrounding it with 1-factor screening corps, preventing its movement. (You can approximate this by playing the initial Austria v. France Austerlitz scenario in the original EiA game which involves no PP exchanges and you will immediately see the value of screening corps in preventing the French army from reaching Vienna in time).

Because of the lack of implementation of the 5:1 trivial battle rule, screening corps are no longer practical (as they would merely reap a PP harvest) and thus you can no longer slow down Napoleon from running his 12-stack of death straight to Vienna or Berlin. The lack of implementation of this rule is a balance-breaker, and certainly is, despite your uninformed coments, an error in design in this game.

quote:


First, trivial combats CAN result in PP. The exception is when the trivial combat is done by agreement, PP are gained or lost normally (see EIA 7.5.3.5, the EXCEPTION).

Second, you are complaining about the lack of an OPTIONAL rule, and, in fact, an EXCEPTION to an optional rule, and calling it a bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Soapy, none of the games I've played in ever played with that rule. I certainly didn't miss it, either. So, it can hardly be called "bizarre" for me to take such a stance. I consider this rule near-zero in terms of overall effect. On top of that, IMO, it would be a hindrance to the game, preventing small forces from ever winning a battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
But, I would much rather see some other options implemented first (like, Nappy going soft in his old age -- I can relate to that).

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

You clearly haven't played with it if you suggest that it has "near-zero in terms of overall effect". It is the single most important game-changing rule there is. It adds an entire other dimension to the maneuver aspect of the game.

And it totally has the exact opposite effect for small forces than you claim, as there is now incentive for small forces to exist, rather than without, which causes massive superstacking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Soapy, none of the games I've played in ever played with that rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Oh, we played with it. For one wartime turn. Then we decided it was detrimental to the game and removed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
It doesn't "add" another dimension to the game. It REMOVES one: The political cost of overrunning the map board with small corps counters. Having this rule in a game would make me not want to play in that game. I might still do it, but the strange tactics that could be employed without this political cost would really bother me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

First, since you never played with the rule, you are making generalizations without any actual meaningful experience. I am therefore puzzled as to why you are defending the lack of implementation of this option (which can easily be implemented, and made an option) in that case.

Second, the "strange tactics" are not without political cost, since you can employ anti-screening measures as well (usually with 4-factor strength corps, which France especially can exploit if moving last then first over two turns). How this removes a dimension from the game escapes me.

But, I suppose it's futile for me to discuss this with you further as you appear to be defending the game as written no matter what. So consider this my last word to you on the subject.