Ted1066
Posts: 214
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Status: offline
|
A) Winter movement
yes
B) Third Party Combat
no
C) France and GB start at war
Yes
D) Options may be changed during game
Yes - needed if something goes wrong
E) Eco Manipulation
yes
F) Fog of War (this also implies that all field, sieges and naval combat forces/tactics and results should be aired by e-mail to all players after completion)
No, no, no, no and no
G) Fleet PP gains/losses are 1/2 pp per fleet, to be implemented via editor (with usual +3/-3 cap)
Not needed, so no
H) GAP for new bids and free predeclared wars
I'd rather not - unless we do a two pass system where first we get to determine what nation we are playing, THEN whether we want to start at war
I) Toulon 90 point gun harbour
Not needed, so no
J) You can enter/cross Dardanelles straits only under the permission of the major power controlling Constantinople (unless besieged), same for Black Sea commerce (to be implemented by editor) and supply routes
No, if for no other reason than it makes working within EIANW that much easier. I like the idea of using this rule, but managing it will be a pain in the butt for the host
K) Patches policy: Only Official patches
Yes!
L) Leader casualty
Yes, though maybe not initially. There are apparently issues with the casualty code right now that are fixed in 1.08
M) Revised PP Cost for occupied Capitals: -3 Paris/London, -2 Constantinople, Vienna, Berlin, -1 Madrid, Moscow and St Petersburg. St Petersburg occupation at ECO denies income as for Moscow occupation. To be implemented by editor.
Not needed, so no. Plus, I believe that to deny Russia income BOTH Moscow and St. Petersburg have to be occupied, not just one. They still suffer the PP loss if either are occupied, though, and the income MP for that province is also lost.
N) Editor to be used when possible to fix eventual bug issues in pp/money
Yes
1) Privateers
No - can't use these anyhow as there are no light ships
2) Lille crossing arrow
Yes
3) France and GB first peace must be unconditional only (France must remove 3 fleets and Nelson; Gb must remove 3 french corps and Nappy)
No, I want the adoption of this rule as per the game manual - Del has already mentioned what those rules are, as I can't remember right now
4) Restore the EIA rule for Holy Roman Empire
Yes
5) Alternate Dominate Powers
No, as much as I would like this, it is not possible to implement this within the current construct of the game
6) Correction of ship builds to 10$/12m (heavy) and 8$/9m (light)
Yes, I would like ships to be priced at $12/1MP, as per original EiA
7) Added VPs for prisoner release
Ditch this rule entirely - No PPs, nothing. Prisoners are only repatriated at the conclusion of the war.
8) Aggravated Capital occupation (the malus in pp's for capital occupation is counted every diplo phase and not every eco phase)
No
9) Casus belli: declaring war on another major power cost 2 and not 3 whenever: called by an allied, or allied/influenced minor get attacked this or previous turn, or denied Dardanelles passage/commerce, or denied US commerce, or targeted by privateers, or target powers controls one of your major provinces/has right of passage on your soil. Again, to be implemented by pp editing.
No
10) Lending troops/ships can be done only if NOT used to avoid battles, like lending your ships to a neutral power, stacking with a power not at war with a nearby enemy force, borrowing your troops to a neutral to be safely transported by sea avoiding enemy intercept [to be clear, Austria cannot lend troops to neutral Spain to be transported by sea to attack, for instance, GB controlled Malta)
Yes, this is necessary. EiA allowed for the DoW of a nation ferrying or harbouring enemy combatants, while EIANW does not allow this effectively.
11) Fleets that were in the blockade box just outside of a port than transfer to the port when the garrison falls may not evacuate troops during the next naval phase. Reason: the blockade box should a separate area than the port but the game program views them the same area. This somehow limit GB capacity to hit and run enemy ports.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in EiA the owner of the port can freely move between the BB and the port itself (including during the land phase if the port is captured), which would allow the troops to be evacuated the following month. If this is the case, then I vote against this rule. Otherwise, I will vote in favour of it.
12) Whenever a neutral minor is attacked, the controlling power cannot use that minor's forces to attack armies or fleets not belonging to the MP that declared upon that minor, until the latter is conquered or a lapse of war occurs.
No - there is nothing in the original EiA rules that limit the use of a minors forces. If France is lucky enough to get control of a Sweden DoW'd by Russia, then GB better prepare for it.
13) As long as garrisoned depots stop enemy's corps movement, they cannot be used intentionally to "screen" forces or territories. They can be placed only if they are nearer to a supply source than at least one corp of the same nationality drawing supply from the same source (e.g. Prussian player cannot place garrisoned depots all around Berlin while his army is sitting in the prussian capital)
I am willing to go along with this rule, with a big HOWEVER. If the player placing the depots can justify their placement (beyond "I'm protecting my capital" rhetoric), then this needs to be allowed. We as players ultimately have to make the sportsmanlike call when it comes to this.
OK, that's my votes on the options picks, I've requested to join the yahoo group and Del now has my email. WOOT!
Cheers,
Ted
|
Printable Version
A new "classic eia" game - 
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