Must France attack Russia? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

MPHopcroft1 -> Must France attack Russia? (7/5/2006 11:56:37 PM)

Although everyone knows about Waterloo, it is fairly obvious to almost everyone who studies the Napoleonic Wars that the emperor's doom was sealed on the steppes of Russia. In hindsight, the entire exercise of the 1812 invasion seems such utter folly that it seems amazing that a leader as astute as Napoleon Bonaparte, who was above all else a master of "the Art of the Possible", would have considered going into Russia neccesary at all.

Which makes me think, as I await the Empire in Arms computer game, about this question: is it possible for the French player to win the game without at some point mounting a successful full-scale invasion of Russia? Indeed, how do you define the success of such an enterprise? (Up until the winter, Napoleon believed he had beathen the Russians, although even before the cruel retreat he acknowledged the heavy price he had already paid there.)




ktotwf -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (7/6/2006 12:21:34 AM)

Well, #1, I think its doubtful that our wannabe Napoleon is going to invade Russia with 600,000 troops as IRL.

From what I have read (I have little experience actually playing the game) an invasion of Russia is possible for a skilled player, but difficult.

Since, in the board game there would be another person playing Russia, all you would have to do to win the war would be to make that person give in to some sort of peace agreement.

Basically, in the game, if you have Napoleon in charge of an army that best takes advantage of his Tactical Maximum rating, a whole lot of crap has to go wrong for you to lose (even if it does, you are still likely to win the battle, if you commit the Imperial Guard). But, if you manage supply unwisely, your army will still die off from attrition and you will be in serious trouble.

But, I believe that if you occupy either Moscow or St. Petersburg, or both (since they are both capitols of Russia ingame, but I am unsure if only one or both has to be occupied) then Russia will lose huge amounts of political points and no longer get money or manpower.

Thus, if Napoleon can keep his army intact and take Moscow and St. Petersburg, manage his supply situation, and defeat the Russians in battle a couple times (this is probably the easiest of the conditions) he should get a very beneficial peace offer.



Ursa MAior -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (7/6/2006 12:49:34 AM)

Is it possible to supply armies with naval units? If so St.Petersburg is the better option.



MPHopcroft1 -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (7/6/2006 1:00:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Is it possible to supply armies with naval units? If so St.Petersburg is the better option.

Given that most Baltic harbors freeze over during the winter (hence the long-standing Russian obsession with "warm-water ports" that let them operate their navy year-round), I doubt that would help much. Plus how would you transport such a large quantity of food and supplies in 1812-era ships while evading the Royal Navy? (By the time Napoleon is read to confront Russia the French fleet would probably have already had their confrotnation with the RN, probably leaving them badly beaten).



rod -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (7/6/2006 1:25:31 AM)

1th it cost russia 1 political points if Moscow or St. Petersburg is taken " 2 if both are" and he cant economic manipultion if just one is taken. So even if france is going to have trouble cousing russia to surender "bloody long way to Astrakhan" if he dosent got the turk helping. but usely they political cost is enough to make russia sue for peace, onless it's in end game. But in the games i played is very rare france gos into russia alone, usely he got prussia/austria or turkey whit him.



malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (7/7/2006 7:47:51 PM)

To be fair, Napoleon didn't have a rulebook telling him what the surrender conditions were for Russia. He had every reason to expect the Russians to come out and fight him and when their army was destroyed and capital taken to have surrendered. Its what respectable nations did.

Also, Napoleon's invasion didn't have a distinct rule difference between allies and 'corps on loan'. He went into Russia with Prussia, Austria, Italy, Poland, and all the lesser German States allied to him. He had a 'coalition of the willing'. He also didn't have history showing two examples of great European powers failing to conquer Russia.

Alexander may well have surrender and the Russian army may well have been utterly destroyed in a decisive battle. The Invasion of Russia was by no means doomed to failure. Remember that he was not trying to take over Russia. His goal was to intimidate Russia into breaking their ties with Britain and renewing the Continental System. All he wanted was a conditional peace.

France can certainly get a conditional peace from Russia in EiA, especially if he is a good diplomat and makes the war unprofitable for Russia (ie land hungry Turks drooling at every battle result).

In my opinion, EiA fails when people treat it like a wargame. Its not Risk or Diplomacy. Its much more deep and subtle.



MPHopcroft1 -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (7/8/2006 9:15:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

To be fair, Napoleon didn't have a rulebook telling him what the surrender conditions were for Russia. He had every reason to expect the Russians to come out and fight him and when their army was destroyed and capital taken to have surrendered. Its what respectable nations did.

Thank you. That is an excellent insight. IIRC, Russia had not bbeen a player i n European politics all that long by camparison to some of the other powers involved in the conflict (which was a series of short wars, not a sinlge prolonged battle-to-the-deah.)

Napoleon's goals during the period were simple in concept but incredibly complex in execution. The only country he was really interested in ruling was France itself, but he saw that most of the other europan governments viewed his very existe nce as a threat. Foresight was not a partcilarly valuaed commdity amon g the Crowned heads of europe, who did not recognize that a stable france under Bonaparte would have been less danrgerous to them in the ,ong run that the two alternatives, whic were an unstable France under another series of copups and counter-coups or an unstable France under the incompetent survivors of the House of Bourbon. So Napoleon's imperative was to survive, but achieving that goal was continually chalenging and complicated.

I am reminded of that scene in the highly underrated film Waterloo when Napoleon, having retruend to the throne, keeps himself awake all night dictating scores of letters to his adversaries that he must realize they are not even going to bother reading, trying to secure a peace that will allow him a second chance.



Murat -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (7/14/2006 9:21:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MPHopcroft

Which makes me think, as I await the Empire in Arms computer game, about this question: is it possible for the French player to win the game without at some point mounting a successful full-scale invasion of Russia? Indeed, how do you define the success of such an enterprise?


Well to answer the question that was actually asked instead of one I made up for myself just to ramble abut Napoleon's real life Russian campaign, yes the French player can win the game without invading Russia successfully. The only victory condition for the overall game (unless the computer version modifies it) is PP. Anything that gets you PP is successful, anything that loses them is not, so that is how success must be measured. France only needs to stay at war with someone somewhere and keep winning the battles to win the game, thus you can make Russia come to you or just focus on your closer neighbors for getting those PP. EiH also had PP awards for controlling certain provinces or achieving certain results (like ships sunk or alliances) which also allow you to win without going into the Russian Motherland.



Sardonic -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/1/2006 10:12:14 AM)

No France does NOT need to attack Russia.  In fact they can both ALLY.  In doing so, Russia can easily obtain dominance.
One of the best reasons to do so.



Murat -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/1/2006 6:39:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

No France does NOT need to attack Russia.  In fact they can both ALLY.  In doing so, Russia can easily obtain dominance.
One of the best reasons to do so.



And one of the biggest mistakes a French player could ever make in this game. MAYBE in late fall 1815 I would let this happen as a token reward for long alliance and my assured French victory but Dominant Britain is annoying enough let alone a Dominant Russia costing me my double move ability.



bobble -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/1/2006 7:33:36 PM)

The only power you can allow to be dominant is Spain, so you can make combined move and therefore not loosing your double moving capability. And this is not a very good posibility. It is better to France to be the only dominant power (not counting Great Britain, of course).



Sardonic -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/2/2006 6:58:08 AM)

Then I guess you both answered your own questions.

Because Russia WILL try for dominance.



bobble -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/2/2006 3:00:44 PM)

But I don't think that France MUST attack Russia. You can prevent this without attacking him. To become dominant, Russia needs to win three wars unconditionally with three differernt countries (Turkey, Prussia and Austria) and gain control of Sweden.
Also, if Russia meets the conditions for becoming dominant, France could also DOW on him to prevent this (remember that you need to be in peace to become dominant). DOW doesn't mean that you're enforced to attack him and to win that war... you just make the DOW to maintain your dominant advantages...



Sardonic -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/2/2006 4:49:45 PM)

What exactly do you think will happen if you pound Austria and Russia sits it out?
He will wait until your finished, and then shoot the cripple.
Then he will do the same thng to Prussia.
Likely he will do Turkey alone.

There is no way to prevent Russia from gaining Sweden unless Britain stops him.

So we have two cases:

One where France DoW Russia as a matter of course.

Another where France and Russia work out an arraingement.

But there is no reason France cannot win, w/o fighting Russia. He CAN.



Murat -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/3/2006 3:48:57 AM)

Again, the question was not must France attack Russia to win but must France INVADE Russia to win.  Having pounded Austria, nothing prevents me from helping them (or Prussia or Turkey) against Russia and making Russia come to us. The key to French victory is winning battles, best to do them near your borders or those of your allies. ALSO, just declaring war only buys you time, you have to prevent the war from lapsing.



Joisey -> RE: Must France attack Russia? (8/3/2006 8:46:06 PM)

I have played the boardgame version of this game at least a dozen times, and I can confidently say that it is not necessary for France to attack Russia.  France can keep up it's victory points gained per quarter by gaining conditional and unconditional surrenders from Austria, Prussia, Spain in staggered order to keep them all off balance and unable to combine in a grand alliance.  Three big campaigns against these countries in a continuous cycle is plenty to fill up a year.

IF you do decide to take on Russia, forget about sea supply unless you have eliminated the English Navy (an unlikely event).  In my experience, the only way for France to beat a competently played Russia is to have Turkey as an ally and to attack simultaneously.  And that's assuming that Austria, Prussia, and Spain are all under a multi-year non-agression obligation from prior surrenders and that you have built out every minor corps on the continent to protect your supply chain and have a reaction reserve ready to respond to any impertinent Continental landings by the pipsqueak English Army.

France CAN beat Russia, if you plan the invasion carefully.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.5