Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 7/4/2003 7:55:17 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Umber
[B]
Interresting to use territory forage points to limit the number of troops. The supply chain should effect this aswell. The quality of troops should not decide the number, but type should. Defender should have a advantege of using the area.
[/B][/QUOTE]
While from a realism point of view I would agree that quality should not affect how many troops you can stack, from a game-balance viewpoint it is neccessary to provide some allowance for quantity vs quality competitions... the powers with lower quality troops need to be able to use their superior numbers in a meaningful way.

And it is somewhat "historical" in that the French were pretty much always outnumbered by the armies they fought against.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 61
- 7/7/2003 7:54:50 AM   
J Hutton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/20/2003
Status: offline
To defend EIA and its historical representativeness: the game does, imho, a very good job of being historical. The corp sizes are based, at 1 factor per 1000 or so men, on historical corps – have a look at the French order of battle for the invasion of Russia in 1812 and its forces elsewhere (particularly Spain), and you will see the EIA French corp structure. Have a look at the total British army in Spain in 1913, for a good idea of the EIA British corp structure. As I just cited, the battle of Leipzig saw enormous armies meeting in battle - well beyond the limitations of leader's stack rates. (And indeed, Leipzig was a management nightmare for all the combattants - just read an account of the battle). The original EIA game designers did their job, and on the whole did it well.

This is no doubt why Matrix Games took EIA on. Matrix Games are not the authors of such good to play but hardly “history” games such as Civilization or Age of Empires. Such games are fun – I have certainly wasted some weeks on them – but they are historical nonsense.

The idea behind EIA is to create a playable game that is as close to the “conditions” of history as is possible. (If this is not what you want to play, you should play Age of Empires.) But unlike the current world order, where the USA is a super-power with more military might than it knows what to do with, and no real state-based enemies, the Napoleonic period is perfect for a historical multi-player strategic history game. Sure, for some time the French were enormously successful, making it touch and go for states such as England and Russia, and laying waste to Prussia and Austria. But there was a balance of powers, or at least a balance of coalition between powers that eventually brought Napoleon to his feet. Yes, therefore, France is strong, but France is by no means invincible IF the diplomacy works out. This is the thrill of EIA – the interplay between diplomacy and the vicissitudes of the battlefield. What would have happened if Napoleon slept in at Austerlitz, and if the French army was routed? What would have happened if Nelson failed to intercept the French fleet? What would have happened if France allied properly with Prussia (Napoleon was a hopeless diplomat) … How would the balance of powers have adjusted themselves?

This talk about messing with stacking limits or leadership rates for a more balanced game is therefore missing the point. EIA states and armies are not balanced, just as they were not balanced in history, but they do a pretty good representation of what actually went on. This is a good thing, not a problem.

But there is a real problem in the EIA game design – that is, the ability of a country to remain at peace for a very long time (good diplomacy being required no doubt), to fill up its corps, and then to fill up its cities with garrisons. The net result are, by 1812-13, force sizes that are simply not historical. In a historical situation, such disproportionate forces would carry a cost to a nation which is not represented in the game. While the Economic Manipulation rules go some way to addressing the problem, they do not solve it. It therefore makes sense to develop some kind of maintenance cost, even if it is only charged once a country’s factors exceed a certain level. A model should be developed and tested.

John.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 62
- 7/7/2003 1:13:03 PM   
John Umber

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline
[B]maintenance[/B]

The game is based around corps structure (and fleet structure). You only pay maintenance for these units and supply of these units. The game is using a concept of troops raised equals troops ready for the rest of the game. Probably to simplify the qalculations of the costs. (This is not a problem with a computer game). A simple way of adding costs is considering each garrison (city, fort or depot) as a corp unit. The size of these garrissons equals or exceed most of the corp untis anyway. THis does not stop the development of large armies, but it does slow it down considerably. Unfortunately is has a tendency of creating militia garrissons.

I would suspect another way is reducing the manpower values of the nation after a period of peace. Mainly the nations need to use these people for other duties in stead of inlisting in the army. Consider this:

Wartime: Full manpower
Peace 1-6 months: Full manpower, full income
Peace 7-12 months: 70% of manpower, 120% income
Peace 13-18 months: 40% of manpower, 140% income
Peace 18+ months: 10% of manpower, 150% income

It gives a good opportunity to prepare for the new war and not rediculous garrissons.

Economic manipulation is generaly taking care of this nicely. But it is easily missused.

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 63
sliding scale costs - 7/7/2003 2:00:56 PM   
J Hutton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/20/2003
Status: offline
The suggestion immediately above has considerable merit.

In the Napoleonic period the actual percentage of the adult male population under arms was not large when compared to twentieth century warfare, but it did become significant. Governments of the day did spend a very large amount of their tax take on military force - basically their revenue systems were nowhere as efficient as modern tax. They also embarked on quite significant public works (Napoleon's beautification of Paris, or the British reforms of the dock-yards and canal system). But economics are always horribly complex and we could only hope to make the most basic abstraction of this - EIA must remain about military conflict, as that was the defining feature of the period.

Anyway, one possible and simpler modification to the suggestion above would be to allow, in peace time, for a country to exchange manpower for cash (perhaps $2 per MP factor), up to a percentage of their manpower (say 40-50%). This would represent a conscious decision of a government to invest in infrastructure and trade, and to focus on revenue acquisition (the British created the first income tax to help pay for their war). ... But come to think of it, that almost what Economic Manipulation does, although it is a double reduction.

Such a mechanism could be supplimented by a "garrison tax" of, say, $1 for every 20I of garrisons on duty.

It would also encourage the building of cavalry, saving of greater war-chests for future conflicts, ... etc, and reduce the number of militia factors in play.

But still, there are historical difficulties. One of the most decisive economic factors between 1905 and 1907 was a series of very good harvests in France - there was food to spare which enhanced the boyant public mood over Napoleon's victories - which simply can't be modelled for properly as revenue remains static. Also, tax revenue was more about what you could or could not intercept in ports or borders, charging duty and the like, rather than infrastructure (the effects of which were felt more slowly). But Austria, for one, followed a mercantilist economic policy (external trade was bad, internal trade got taxed) and financed its warchest on massive loans and the printing of money (massive inflation). It actually survived quite well for a bit, but probably only because so much of its cash economy was outside the lives of the peasants. France, in contrast, never borrowed - Napoleon did not believe in national debt. Ironically, the French came out of the Napoleonic wars in quite a good economic state, where other nations were hounded by debt for ages. It was only GB that really "won", as it continued to monopolise international trade, reaping massive revenue from it.

Enough history. But lets think more about constructive mechanisms for the calculation of manpower costs over time, and as a gentle way to reduce the chance of massive peace-time buildup of forces.

John.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 64
- 7/7/2003 2:55:17 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
well the limitation of corps is to simulate wars in that period better, also 4 corps is not max on the battle field, as you could still reinforce these.

But no battle in that time, saw 4 full corps go against 4 enemy corps, it was series of battles, some troops was in reserve to fill in, if there was loses.

Thats wars as they where back then, if there is no option to simulate this in the game, then that is what happens, but i think its a mistake.

as for economy of Napoleon time and how many troops they could maintain, normally a country would be able to maintain a sizeable army, but records show that Prussia had a population of 10million, before Napoleon time, during Prussia dominant days just before. So if they took 10% of that its still 1 million men under arms during their war, quite alot. In those days you normally could hold 5 to 15% of population in arms, including boys and old men offcourse :)

England was close to bankrupt do to this war, massive debts existed because England borrowed money from their banks.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 65
- 7/7/2003 8:57:26 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DodgyDave
[B]time, saw 4 full corps go against 4 enemy corps, it was series of battles, some troops was in reserve to fill in, if there was loses.
[/B][/QUOTE]

So you should like my factor/forage stacking limit system, complete with reserves and everything ;)

The problem with hard corps stacking limits, especially based on leader ratings, is that you give the French an advantage they definitively never had: numerical superiority in every single battle.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 66
- 7/7/2003 9:09:08 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
Well if your suggestion gets included in the game, then will i have a look at it for sure, anything to make game more fun for those nations who just get killed off

As for france not being superior in numbers, i saw a note once on how many troops was on both sides, they tend to be 1 corps vs 1 corps, but its true there is differences in unit size, but then the EIA game includes that each unit is between 1000 to 2000 people.

France had better coorporation between troops, that means their units might be just 1000 each, so a 20I/3C could actually mean 20.000 Inf and 3.000 Cav, while a Austrian Corps of 15I/1C would be 30.000 INF and 2.000 Cav.

so france corps is lower in troops, but due to their organisation and better junior staff, they fight as 20/3 vs Austria 15/1.

So 6 French corps with Napoleon vs 6 Austrian corps with Charles, means Austria brings more troops then france, but will lose due to poor coordination.

Does EIA corps even show the true number of troops they used at that time or should Austrian corps be bigger then french? should turkish corps have several times more troops, thats the question here.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 67
- 7/7/2003 9:40:46 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
I beleive the corps sizes are accurate for all nations (again except Turkey) with the caveat that most of the nations in the game adopted the "corps" system (which was a French invention) at different periods during the 1805 Grand Campaign.

For example after Austerlitz, Austria reorganized their army into corps along French lines, resulting in the 15/1 corps you play the whole game with.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 68
Re: sliding scale costs - 7/7/2003 9:50:29 PM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by J Hutton
[B]
Such a mechanism could be supplimented by a "garrison tax" of, say, $1 for every 20I of garrisons on duty.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I think this might do the trick, although I'd prefer a sliding scale, and certainly some "free" garrisons should be allowed.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 69
- 7/7/2003 10:15:59 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
How about for every 5 factors you have in garrison you get one less manpower?

Add to that 1$ per 10 factors whether in garrison or in corps and you have yopurself a proper maintenance rule.

e.g. as France right now I have ~40 garrisons (all my controlled cities garrisoned by one factor each) so my manpower would drop from 50 to 42, and I would pay 4$ to maintain the garrisons, and then say another $16 for the ~160 factors in my army plus say $20 corps/depot maintenance... well thats -40$/-8mp added to my -35$/-12mp manipulation for a total of -75$/-20mp, leaving me with about 50$/20mp free and clear to spend.

Ouf thats painfull... but thats what you are looking for right? :D

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 70
- 7/8/2003 2:54:34 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
I argue against any change in the existing rules w regard to troops. Obviously there is some unstated reason that is driving so
many to try and foist a change. At a guess I would say that
they want to see weaker powers. I think things are fine as they are.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 71
- 7/8/2003 10:15:13 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
Well I would tend to agree, like I said I have not seen out-of-control garrison building in many many many years of gaming... usually no one gets the chance... you know, open warfare and all :D

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 72
- 7/8/2003 10:53:09 AM   
J Hutton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/20/2003
Status: offline
That is exactly the point - there is a problem in EIA with overly big accumulated garrisons, it is not a large problem as it does not develop too often. Indeed, on the whole EIA is a pretty accurate reflection of Napoleonic combats, corp sizes, battle sizes, etc.

The previous posts about army sizes in the field and the reduction of corp numbers in battle in EIA are simply not accurate historically, and they don't make good gaming sense either - ideas about reinforcing from neighbouring provinces as the way to increase the number or corps in battles ignores the fact that we are actually dealing with pretty big hexes/provinces for movement. The multiple "corp" advances over a wide frong that Napoleon developed in 1805 to ensure that he could bring the enemy to battle (and outflank where possible), and which the allies reformed their armies to cope with in 1807-08, seldom saw forces move outside one or perhaps two EIA land areas. Go and study some of the strategic campaign maps in books on the period such as in Chandler.

More importantly, don't mess with the EIA system when it ain't broke.

So, two rules proposals:

1. When a country is at peace it may exchange up to 1/3 of its manpower for cash, at the rate of $2 for every MP exchanged (this rule can be combined with economic manipulation, or not);

2. A country must pay a maintenance fee of $1 for every 20I factors in garrison.

John

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 73
- 7/8/2003 11:03:35 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline
All the suggestions are nice and appreciated, but I have to go with the "EiA is pretty good now" and I have never seen garrison build up in any of the EiA games I have played, and I have played a lot of EiA. If one of these, or another, suggestion is put in the game, it should be an option only.

_____________________________


(in reply to danton)
Post #: 74
- 7/8/2003 5:59:39 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
well its interesting to see, how some claim that stack wars in EIA was common in napoleon times.

Only way you would end up with a stack war is to reinforce a battle, waterloo was by EIA claimed to be a Reinforce attempt by the british.

France if you read history called in corps most likely from other area nearby as well or wanted too.

Again troop count in EIA battles are stacks that hardly ever seen in Napoleon times, it was actually corps vs corps most of the battles back then.

In a bigger area it might be armies moving corps, this is what happens in EIA due to land sector sizes.
But armies over 120.000 men, that dont happen daily back then, only in EIA.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 75
- 7/9/2003 3:08:39 AM   
John Umber

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline
[B]Soldiers in battle[/B]

One of the most famous battles took place outside Brussles at Waterloo. It is a small are 10x4 kilometers. With the surrounding villages the hole battle was still inside the EIA "Brussels area". Rather in just a small part of the Brussels area, it is still half an hour by car from Brussels on a highway...

The forces were in that "area".

English: 68.000 men under Wellington.
Prussia: 89.000 men under Blücher

French: army 1: 72.000 men under Napoleon
army 2: 33.000 men under Grouchy

Now, how many stacks would that make. I suspect rather close to the corps used in EIA. I would say the size of the map's areas makes the armygroups much larger. The battle is commenced in three seperate "days". But the entire move is for a full month...

I think they were thinking a lot about this when they made the game. If the number of corps in each area should be limited, then the areas should also be a lot smaller.

Thank you for your time...

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 76
- 7/9/2003 3:35:33 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
That would be 4 French corps, 2 infantry + a weak guard under Napoleon & Ney, and 1 corps under Grouchy (leaderless I guess).

Prussians would have 3 corps. Anglo-Dutch would likely be 1 british corps plus the dutch corps and the hanover corps.

The battle would be an Escalated Assault (Nappy) vs Defend (Welly) with both the Prussians and Grouchy trying to reinforce, and only the Prussians succeeding.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 77
- 7/9/2003 8:07:45 AM   
J Hutton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/20/2003
Status: offline
Yes, other than Leipzig and Borodino, there were few massive (120,000+ a side) stack battles through the Napoleonic period. But these two battles show that not only could they happen, but that they should be allowed to happen in the EIA rules, and I think the rules work in this respect.

I think that there is a tendency in the way people play EIA to seek out the decisive battle with the big stack, while failing to do other things such as try to occupy enemy territory and cities and defend or cut supply lines. Historically, say with the invasion of Russia, there were two main thrusts - one north and one south of the Pipit (sp?) marshes. By the time Borrodino happened many French troops were deployed to defend the supply lines, or to besiege Riga, or other cities elsewhere - the battle only represented about a fifth of the French army. But the Russians did a pretty good job of not allowing France to come to the big stack battle until the eve of winter - they actively threatened French supply lines, etc., had much of their own army fighting elsewhere. Borrodino was not a battle the Russians really wanted anyway.

But in the early part of the period (1805-1809), the number of troops being deployed at Austerlitz, Ulm, Jena, etc., appear pretty much what you would expect in an EIA game. I list some battle numbers below (not entirely accurate, so be careful).

Perhaps the problem is that players are not rewarded enough (or penalised enough) for taking and holding local capitals (as suggested elsewhere, perhaps a financial bonus - 1/2 income no manpower for the invading force holding a provincial capital, but why not also a -1 pp adjustment for the loss of a provincial capital without any friendly troops in the province (either as corp or garrisons - showing a willingness to defend territory should be rewarded, although this is pretty mean). Such mechanisms would encourage the sending off of smaller forces to defend territory, or harrass the enemy.

Don't forget also that by the time Napoleon was fighting in 1809-1812, there was also a good sized force in Spain being tied down by the British/French. Napoleon was trying foolishly to fight on two fronts, and the relative size of the force that he was able to bring to battle in Austria/Prussia reflected this. No doubt the battles would have been larger if France was not in Spain. Don't forget also that the 1808-09 battles vs Prussia and Austria followed from some very destructive engagements in 1806-07 - their armies had hardly time to recover.

The big-stack problem is more a latter-game aspect when countries did not batter each other sufficiently in 1805-09, and thus had more of a chance to build up. But what's wrong with a game where there are five or eight Leipzig equivalents in 1811-1815 - thats just the way the history might have played out.

My only gripe is that the mechanisms allow the filling up of corps, then the deployment of massive garrisons without any ongoing "levelling out" of manpower and recruitment - hence the suggestion for a small cost to garrison numbers and the ability to get a bit more money in exchange for manpower. These are not radical suggestions, but would have a longer-term effect.

Some battle numbers:

1805 Austerlitz 85,000 Austrian/Russians vs 66,000 French

1805 Ulm 40,000 Austrians surrounded, 27,000 of whom surrendered

1806 Jena 40,000 French, reinforced by 50,000 vs 35,000 Prussians, reinforced by 15,000

1807 Friedland 61,000 Russians vs 80,000 French

1807 Eylau 74,000 Russians vs 50,000 French (reinforced later in the day by Davout)

1809 Aspern-Essling 95,000 Austrians vs 24,000 French, reinforced across river (more a Cordon) by ??? as the day progressed

1809 Wagram 155,000 Austrians vs ??? French, but 80,000 casualties under both sides

1809 Talavera 55,000 British and Spanish vs 46,000 French

1812 Salamanca 50,000 French vs 48,000 British

1812 Borodino 120,000 Russians vs 133,000 French

1813 Bautzen 100,000 Allies vs 115,000 French under Napoleon reinforced poorly by 85,000 men under Ney

1813 Lutzen 110,000 French vs 100,000 Prussian/Russians

1813 Leipzig 200,000 French vs 400,000 Allies

1815 Waterloo Anglo-Allied 68,000, reinforced by 89,000 Prussians vs 72,000 French (not reinforced by 33,000 men under Grouchy, although admittedly he was tied down for much of the day fighting a Prussian rear-guard)

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 78
- 7/9/2003 10:31:51 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
It seems to me, after reading the many books on the topic....

That established forces attrited at an alarming rate
even in the abscence of a war, the men simply vanished.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 79
- 7/9/2003 11:28:21 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
if you note, then are most of those battles between 4 vs 4 or lesser number of corps.

When its more then that, i doubt they began at the battle field first day, so are in fact reinforced corps and units.

So with corps per land sector of 4, then can you still reinforce a battle, so it ends up with lots, while france got advantage the others will begin to get the upper hand, if they capture leaders or kill them. Also only a few french leaders are good at reinforcing, as they tend to be 3 or 4 in strategic. This does not mean France will win, i know as france i once used 6 corps with Napoleon in finland to fight all of Russia at once, tried to reinforce with a 5 leader, that worked, but since i was defending and was in a forest, i rolled past my outflank of 4.

The other way around would have meant Nap as captured and 6 corps wiped out.

But that the war with Russia would end with 1 stack of 18 corps vs russia´s remaining last units (around 2/3 of all they had) its stupid.

As France i had what like 200.000 troops in Finland vs all of russia thats around 150.000 or more. Thats bigger then what any battle of that time, our game died due to russia losing that fight. Reduced them to their garrison troops only, which still included 100+ Inf. While i had 2/3 my army and reserve Garrison of 200+ INF.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 80
- 7/10/2003 12:59:21 PM   
John Umber

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline
What on earth was the other major powers doing while you had all your troops in Finland?

France or Russia should be invaded by at least three or four other countries... (I know sometimes peace and diplomacy makes funny resuls...)

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 81
- 7/10/2003 1:08:29 PM   
J Hutton

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/20/2003
Status: offline
I would say that 200K of French having a spa in Finland would mean that the Spanish had occupied Paris and every other regional capital of France.

Another question with this idea of limiting stacks - who really wanders around with fully factored up corps all the time. A bit of forage losses, a few minor battles, the coming together of corps for the big bash who have otherwise been having a hard time, means that it is only ideal circumstances when you will have corps maxed out.

How did the French get to Finland anyway? Did the British allies give them a ride?

JH:cool:

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 82
- 7/10/2003 6:04:13 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
Why 12 french corps was in Finland, well because England was also angry at Russia, so england sailed 7 of my corps there and i moved 5 myself. (did i forget to include that England and France had become allies)

Also had spain tried, then would my reserve corps have taken him out. I had 5 infantry corps and 2 cav corps at home along with 7 or 8 minor corps.

More then enough to match Spain.

Prussia could do nothing, i saved him from Russia, because after my war with prussia, then had Prussia only 2 Guards left and russia wanted to attack him and i allied with prussia to save prussia from a easy russia victory.

Again a Prussia is not anything close to a major power.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 83
- 7/10/2003 6:09:52 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
Have on the other hand, tried a strange manouver, Russia player told me as Prussia, that i had no chance to win, even with England to help me, so i talk to the English player and we declared war on Russia and invaded him, we beat him back, first 1 big battle, i lost around 15 cavalry, we lost first battle, but he lost more then us total, just no cavalry, so the English financed the lost cavalry and we pushed on, England took St. petersborg and moskov, while i concentrated on mid Russia, to take all the manpower yielding provinces.

Never tried this before, but we won.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 84
- 7/10/2003 7:40:40 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
That's a pretty screwed up game! You must have had quite a few newbies on deck. Plus playing without the French-British peace restrictions is a bad idea for game-balance.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 85
- 7/10/2003 7:44:14 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
we did play with the france and british part, England Surrendered unconditionally, when i managed to place 4 corps in England.

It was the player playing Russia who made a mess of it, as he wanted to pick on the weak and i could not let Russia just win the game nor could england, so we found that we had to ally, to be sure we could trust each other.

Never seen it happen since then :)

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 86
- 7/10/2003 8:08:12 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline
Nevertheless England and France can never ally, and therefore England can never transport French troops.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 87
- 7/10/2003 8:22:19 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
there is no rules that suggested that.

It said, that unless one part unconditionally surrenders to the other side, then could they never ally.
England lost and we could there for ally.

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 88
- 7/10/2003 8:31:54 PM   
John Umber

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Nice strange game.

I have never seen that, but it all depends on the players as usual. The rule regarding GB versus France is due to the dominant status of those two countries, if I am correct. If one country loses the dominant status, then they should be allowed to ally. Question then, if let say Russia becomes dominant instead of France, would England then automaticly be forced to NOT ally with Russia?

Could make sense from a balanced game point of view, but hardly historical...?

Any suggestions?

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 89
- 7/10/2003 8:38:23 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
ohh yeah, England lost their dominance :)

In a way its a bit silly that they have to fight, what if France lose 2/3 of their leaders and Russia is dominant instead, as you say, then should it be england and Russia, especially if france is nolonger dominant.

But again game dont refer to this, but that explains also why we prefer to play 1792 instead of 1805 :)

(in reply to danton)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
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

1.031