Stacking in Computer EiA (Full Version)

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



Message


Russian Guard -> Stacking in Computer EiA (6/20/2007 1:34:11 AM)


Apologies if this is a subject covered elsewhere -

Will computer EiA limit Corps stacking, either via maximum Commander ratings or otherwise?

Just wondering if the "monster stack" issue in regular EiA will rear it's ugly head with this game as well. Of course, there may be other elements of the game that no longer make monster stacks desireable (ie, more penalizing foraging rules, limiting supply, increasing costs of supply in larger stacks, whatever).

Any comments appreciated.







Monadman -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/22/2007 6:55:27 PM)

There is a stack limitation of 15 counters of ANY type in any one area for each major power.

Also, Tactical Maximum Ratings are in use.

Richard


[image]local://upfiles/18990/53897063E4664DB29BA76A59418518C1.jpg[/image]




Russian Guard -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/26/2007 2:13:34 AM)


ANY counters? Even Depots, Commanders, Cossacks, etc?

Sounds good overall but not sure if this renders Cossacks or multiple Commanders in stacks, completely undesireable. Of course maybe there are other rules changes from standard EiA that change things I'm unaware of.

Thanks kindly for your response.








Monadman -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/26/2007 4:58:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


ANY counters? Even Depots, Commanders, Cossacks, etc?




Yes, any means any.

Richard




Russian Guard -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/27/2007 12:00:58 AM)


Dictionary lesson aside, thanks for the clarification.

Wonder how that rule would work in the "board" version of the game...anyone care to chime in?







StCyr -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/27/2007 12:44:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


ANY counters? Even Depots, Commanders, Cossacks, etc?




Yes, any means any.

Richard


quote:

ANY counters? Even Depots, Commanders, Cossacks, etc?




Yes, any means any.



Would be totally redicules if it means that you have to decide between Murat or another cav coprs with your army attacking at Borodino ie...




Mardonius -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/27/2007 2:33:33 AM)

I am not too fond of this counter limit rule as its seems to derive from the amount of space available on the computer display vice any historical, geographic, or statistical reality.



[image]local://upfiles/24637/DA0900CFB0534070B21A163F4080DC89.jpg[/image]




Russian Guard -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/27/2007 3:24:00 AM)


This is the kind of discussion I was hoping would generate.

I agree that on the face of it, having to decide to include Murat (or for that matter Blucher in an Allied stack) as opposed to a Corps counter, seems silly.

Yet it MAY work in an unrealistic yet beneficial way. For example, the French could afford - given their larger Corps - to fight with fewer actual Corps and include a Depot for cheaper supply as well as a second leader (Murat), whereas the Allies would tend to want more Corps to compete with Napoleons' numbers.

Still processing this, but...maybe








Montbrun -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/27/2007 4:30:12 AM)

Maybe Leaders should not count towards the stacking limits...




bielius -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/27/2007 5:26:26 AM)

Hi all!

Cossacks, Guerrilla and Freikorps counters, stack together respectively (as one counter every troop type) or one by one (as various counters depending on the value of the marker)? [sm=00000007.gif]

Thank you!

Nice work!




j-s -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/27/2007 2:50:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bielius

Hi all!

Cossacks, Guerrilla and Freikorps counters, stack together respectively (as one counter every troop type) or one by one (as various counters depending on the value of the marker)? [sm=00000007.gif]



Good question!
If you play Spain and use guerillas to attack from different areas and they all will be counted as a counter, this rule will be a disaster.

Again, I don't see any point why there should be a limit. Computer can handle 15 or 30 stack, so no problem. If we want to limit stacking, there is a optional rule for depot supply (max. 4 corps/depot). This is a new rule and it should be dismissed.




yammahoper -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/28/2007 12:34:18 AM)

My favorite optional rule that prevented common big stacks was limiting supply available from a depot to four corps maximum in a supply phase. A mass stack inside your home nation was easy, but projecting deep into an enemy nation required good planning.

yamma




oldtimer -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/28/2007 1:39:13 AM)

Russian Guard.  I think your statement is incorrect about the stack limit working in favor of the French.  Remember the counter limit is 15 PER major power.  So Austria, Prussia, and Russia could stack 45 counters.  Lets see Prussia provides supply plus 8 unit counters and Blucher, Austria provides 9 unit counters plus Charles, Russia adds another 9 unit counters so now you have 26 unit counters plus a leader and a cav leader vs French 13 counters and a leader and cav leader or one less unit if they want a depot.

While the French will still have a lot of troops present I think numerically the "allies" have a better stacking potential.

This is based on the original comments concerning counter limits.  I am not sure if this is true if powers choose to combine move or other scenerios that may occur.  Marshall or a beta tester would be able to answer these the easiest based on play experience or test this particular scenerio.




Russian Guard -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/28/2007 2:18:27 AM)


Oldtimer, I see your point.

If "for each Major Power" was meant specifically, as opposed to "each major power or coalition of powers", then your point is dead-on.

I assumed the former because the latter interpretation does little to stop mass stacking, especially (obviously) for coalition stacks. Not to mention, Nappy could stack with an Allied Nation (Spain, for example).

Maybe another Language Arts lesson is in order, for clarification.

If it is indeed "per Nation", then I'm not sure I see the point to this rule.









Monadman -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/28/2007 4:36:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


Oldtimer, I see your point.

If "for each Major Power" was meant specifically, as opposed to "each major power or coalition of powers", then your point is dead-on.

I assumed the former because the latter interpretation does little to stop mass stacking, especially (obviously) for coalition stacks. Not to mention, Nappy could stack with an Allied Nation (Spain, for example).

Maybe another Language Arts lesson is in order, for clarification.

If it is indeed "per Nation", then I'm not sure I see the point to this rule.







Well actually Russian Guard each does not mean each (my bad). It’s a bit more complicated then that. It should read: “There is a stack limitation of 15 counters of any type in any section of a city or rural area.”

In EiANW, there are four parts of a land area that units may reside. The program identifies these areas as “Besieging Rural” and “Besieging City” for attacking units and “Rural” and “City” for non-attacking units.

In the screen shot on the left, you’ll notice that the Prussians and Austrians (allies) are stacked together in the rural section of the Dresden area and that they have reached their 15-counter limit (so neither ally can move any more units into the rural area). Meanwhile, in the screen shot on the right, the French have attacked the Prussians and Austrians and they reside in the besieging rural section of the Dresden area.

Note: even though the city could take up to 15 counters, it is highly unlikely that that will ever occur, but in this example, if Prussia wanted to, they could move a counter or two into the city of Dresden, leaving more room in the rural area.

Richard



[image]local://upfiles/18990/F980B774E64346CAA09F91EB505D6630.jpg[/image]




Russian Guard -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/28/2007 6:49:42 PM)


Ahh, Thanks for that clarification Monadman.

While I very much like the idea of limiting stacking size, this seems pro-French. Of course, that assumption is based on the fact that the French can almost always pile 15 counters that would normally be superior to any 15 counters any other force could throw together (assuming Corps capacity is the same as the board game). That's fine in principle, as it would reflect historical realities for the most part. But how can an "Allied Coalition" ever outnumber the French in a single battle?

Let's see...an Austrian/Prussian/Russian coalition could stack all of their Guard Corps (4 total if Corps are the same as in the EiA board game), another 8 Corps representing their biggest/best Corps (Prussian I Corps, Russian I Corps, etc) and throw in 2 Cav Corps and Charles. 15.

That would be a high morale Allied stack but would undoubtedly be outnumbered and moraled (is that a word?) by 15 French Corps under Napoleon, with die roll advantages going to the French.

Hmmmm.....









carnifex -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/28/2007 9:03:10 PM)

arbitrary counter limits make me cry

hi nappy i can't move in the corps to help you because there are too many leaders in your province

--regards, grouchy

/boggle !




donkuchi19 -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/28/2007 11:22:11 PM)

I remember playing EIA as a board game and the players that made the super stacks always seemed to lose because their corps would end up having to forage and they would lose many factors that way while their opponents would avoid combat and go around the super stack and occupy all of the provinces. They may win the battles but end up losing the war because all of their provinces were conquered.




oldtimer -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/29/2007 4:04:11 AM)

I also want to say thanks for clarifying the stacking limits as well.

This definitely gives an advantage to the French.

Lets look at this numerically. We will take 14 of the best numerical counters for the collation plus Charles. We will consider the Russians, Prussians & Austria as that is what I have seen most in the beginning of the game as stacking together.
Prussia puts in 8 corp (116I / 25C), Russia 1 Corp (18I / 2C), and Austria 5 Corp (75I / 5C) for a grand total of 209I / 32C (241 factors) and Charles would be a 4-2-6 with a -1 to die roll.

The Spanish put in 4 Corp (54I / 8C / 2G) French throw in 6 Corp, Imp Guard, 2 Cav Corp (145I / 35C / 20G) For a grand total of 199I / 43C / 22G (264 factors) Murat (CAV Pursuit bonus)& Napoleon would be a 5-3-6

This would give France Superior numbers and I prefer the -1 die roll for my opponent because it cuts back on casualties and moral loss for myself.

In the board game though the collation forces may stack to inflict maximum casualties on the French while losing a few battles thus giving them the opportunity to build faster over time and maintain a numerical superiority on the field.

With a French double move they can slaughter small stacks and then regroup.

I am not saying I am a fan of monster stacks but there are times it is necessary for the purpose of causing %casualties not to win the battle. Forcing smaller stacks can help a good French player by allowing small battles (more PP) and restacking lessoning counter-strikes.

Now I haven't seen the MEiA so it may be that the French movement flexibility is not there. This can be a serious disadvantage to the French if it is not (Same as naval movement for England) because it is French mobility that helps him fight the numerous collation units.

I am curious can the play testers comment on any of this. They are actually playing the game and perhaps based on how the game processes it actually plays well-balanced. I am assuming some of the play testers where/are avid players of the board version of EiA and have experienced a variety of strategies that enabled them to judge this.

Just my quick and dirty 2 cents. Rip my 5 minute strategy apart. [:)]




Sardonic -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/29/2007 12:52:35 PM)

Stacking limits will favor France. It is that simple.

Because France has bigger corp.

In some games I have seen, it was not unusual to see 20+ allied corp fighting 10 or so French, just to attrit
the French.




Russian Guard -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/30/2007 2:19:30 AM)


Thanks Oldtimer, you expanded nicely, the point I made earlier.

Again, unless they have changed Corps size and configuration for this game from the board game, this will favor the French in any 1-on-1 battle.

Your point about the French being able to "double-turn" and smash smaller Allied stacks is also dead-on, and I worry about that, if the French still have the double-turn capacity mixed with maximum stack size limits.

I played the board game for many years (over 20), and with many different players. Like you, we found through experience that monster stacks - however unpleasant - were just about mandatory to fight France if she was at full-strength.

That's actually the reason I started this thread - I wanted to know if the computer version would successfully limit stack sizes without tilting the game in favor of France. Personally, I HATE monster stacks.

Oh and Carnifex - I think Grouchy's letter to napoleon would have read "Apologies, Sire, but the roads to your position are already filled with Ney's forces as he marches to your position - he will arrive, but logistics make it impossible for my Corps to make it in time."

See, it'a all in how you look at it (rationalize it) [;)]










carnifex -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (6/30/2007 2:32:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

Oh and Carnifex - I think Grouchy's letter to napoleon would have read "Apologies, Sire, but the roads to your position are already filled with Ney's forces as he marches to your position - he will arrive, but logistics make it impossible for my Corps to make it in time."

See, it'a all in how you look at it (rationalize it) [;)]


No, I'm pretty sure it will read I can't march my 12,000 men to help you because there is one man standing in the way. It's not Ney's forces, it's just his counter. Him and a couple of adjutants.

You know, the more I think about it, the more nonsense it seems. What, the devs couldn't find a way to display more than 15 counters in the available space? I mean that has to be it because it obviously can't be anything based on realism, since we're treating a cossack counter or whatever other POS 1k conglomeration of men as equal to a Corps of 15 thousand.

And of course this is going to favor the French. And it will also lead to silly debates between allies about the perfect 15 counter stack.




iamspamus -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/4/2007 3:29:47 PM)

My experience was the opposite. Monster stacks by one side, forced monster stacks by the other. This is one of my problems with the game. On the other hand, arbitrary 15 unit (general / combat unit) stacking limits is a poor concept. It may prevent me from purchasing the game...

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: donkuchi

I remember playing EIA as a board game and the players that made the super stacks always seemed to lose because their corps would end up having to forage and they would lose many factors that way while their opponents would avoid combat and go around the super stack and occupy all of the provinces. They may win the battles but end up losing the war because all of their provinces were conquered.





La Provence -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/4/2007 11:02:52 PM)

In accordance with the size of the area : A stacking limit is a nonsense !
So, an unlimited stacking will be suitable.
And it's stupid to count as a corps a lonely leader !!!

BUT

1- Because of the logistic difficulty of this period, the player must have forage penality :
- Limit to suply support of a Depot ; the others must forage with the penality due to the corps number.
- To avoid this, the player can create (if possible) more suply chain !

2- A penality must be applied to the movement point in regards with the leader strategic rating. Because it's more difficult to organize and command a big number of corps. (The same for the navy of course).

3- In acordance with my idea, a freikorps/cosak  in this case (in a big stacking) are assimilated to a corps. Because :
- if they are in this case, it is the player wish to put them under the command of an army leader !
- in a such area, it will be difficult for us to find logistic and supplies (like the others).

Conclusion :
All this rules limit the movement capacity of a big stack AND the cost of its supply AND the forage loses.
So, the big stacks have battle advantage BUT also logistic disadvantage.




oldtimer -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/5/2007 2:47:00 AM)

La Provence the rules do have logistical penalties for large stacks.

1 - We always played with the optional rule that a depot could only supply 4 corp.

2 - For each corp in the area where you finish movement (enemy or friendly) you get a +1 modifier to the die roll to a maximum of +2, for each unused movement point you get a -1, but if you have 10 corp in the area and 2 MPs left then it would be +10 - 2 = +8 penalty but that is lowered to only +2. This die roll modifier is then applied to your die roll and compared to the lowest foraging value area you moved through (not counting your starting point).

You then roll for every corp that is not on depot supply so casualties can add up. Do it in Winter and add another +2 and make it a force march and add another +1 so potentially you can have a +5 die roll modifier.

In my opinion EiA was not designed to be a realistic war game but rather an enhanced diplomacy. When I played this game the "lively" interactions between players because one felt betrayed by the other whether true or not or the plotting of schemes to gang up on another power. The attempt to get something while giving little. All that is what made EiA sometimes known as "Arguments in Arms" a great game. The battles, logistics, movement, etc that is just a means in the game for a person to enforce his/her desires for their country.

The EiH rules were an attempt to make things more "realistic" for the cardboard pieces, force more realistic alliances with minors, etc. I never cared for that because it took away from the diplomacy in an attempt to "balance" other things.

This isn't your typical war game like Panzer Leader, 1776, Midway, etc. This is a war game about the interaction of people. I think the email aspect is going to make it that much more fun. Now you can't stand next to the person and explain what you meant. Now you have to communicate VERY clearly to the other person in explaining your "deals" and "desires." With the Internet now one has to deal truly with different cultures and language barriers in writing.

I use to run a PBEM version of this game. As the person that ran it you couldn't actually play it, but you got to watch how people schemed and plotted. This game will allow everyone to play because the computer will run all the mechanics of the game.

I can't wait for this game to come out. I just don't want a game that is focused on making everything balanced and realistic, but rather sticks as close as possible to the EiA rules and lets the real game of diplomacy come forth.

I have to go, but I could say more on this and probably better just a little rushed putting these thoughts down.




Frank McNally -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/5/2007 4:45:18 PM)

Is the +2 cap on forage owing to other corps applied after you subtract the unused MP or is it applied first such that in your example, you would have +2 for othr corps -2 for unused MP = 0 modifier?




malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/5/2007 6:24:25 PM)

Am I misremembering this game? When I walk forward with my one super stack and attack a moderate sized stack, am I not also forced to engage all adjacent stacks as they rush to join the battle?

One stack can be bypassed. Supporting wings of an army was better in that it gave more flexibility, breadth, and security. It also didn't leave all your eggs in one basket and was easier on foraging. Multiple moderate stacks on the attck could better influence retreat directions.





Montbrun -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/5/2007 6:35:45 PM)

"7.4 THE SUPPLY STEP
Only Corps and besieged forces must be supplied. Leaders and unbesieged Cossacks, Freikorps, Basibozuks, Guerrillas and garrisons do not need supply.
7.4.1 FORAGING
“Foraging” represents living off the country. When a Corps ceases movement it may elect (or be forced) to “forage” rather than use depot supply. If it has force marched, or is four or more areas from the nearest depot in a friendly valid supply chain, or not eligible to use invasion supply, or no money is available for depot supply then it must forage for supply.
7.4.1.1 Foraging Procedure
A D6 is rolled for each foraging Corps as it completes movement (but after resolving any 7.3.13 procedures that may be caused by its movement). This D6 roll is modified as below, if any modifiers apply. The modified D6 result is than compared with the forage value of the area with the lowest forage value of all the areas passed through or stopped in, not counting the area in which the Corps started (unless the Corps did not move and remained in that area), during its Land Movement Step. If the modified D6 result is equal to or less than this forage value, there is no effect. For each modified D6 point above the forage value, the Corps must lose one army factor.
7.4.1 Foraging
Land Area
Base = Lowest forage value of terrain passed through

Modifiers
-1 inside home nation province
-1 per unused movement point
+1 if force marched
+1 for each additional Corps
in final forage location (Max -2)
+2 during Winter months
+2 if plunder marker on area
Besieged City
Base = Number of spires of city
Modifiers
+1 for 4-9 factors in city
+2 for 10+ factors in city
-2 for Galley supply 6.2.2.4

7.4.1.2 Foraging Modifiers
When the D6 is rolled for a foraging Corps, the following cumulative modifiers may apply:
7.4.1.2.1 Other Corps in the Area
For each other unbesieged Corps in the area it currently occupies, whether that Major Power’s or not (including friendly and enemy Corps which have, or have not, already moved during this step), “+1” is added to the result of the D6, up to a maximum of “+2”. NOTE: This does not include Corps that leave the area as a result of the 7.3.13 procedures .
7.4.1.2.2 Unused Movement Points
For each movement point the Corps did not use, one is subtracted from the D6. EXCEPTION: The D6 is not modified due to unused movement points if the Corps is besieging or planning to besiege enemy forces in the area.
7.4.1.2.3 Force Marching
If the Corps force marched, “+1” is added to the D6 roll.
7.4.1.2.4 Winter
If it is winter, “+2” is added to the D6 roll unless the Corps is in the “Mediterranean zone” (9.2.3).
7.4.1.2.5 Plunder
If the area where the city is located has a plunder marker on it (7.7.5), “+2” is added to the D6 roll.
7.4.1.2.6 In Home Nation Provinces
If the Corps did not move into an area outside the Major Power’s home nation provinces, or home minor country or Kingdom provinces, for a minor country or Kingdom Corps this turn, and is not now in such an area, “-l” is subtracted from the D6 roll .
7.4.1.3 Foraging Losses
The factor or factors removed for foraging losses may be any in the Corps of the controlling Major Power’s choice, with these restrictions:
• Any factors that were part of the Corps during its movement are eligible to be used for forage losses. If possible, forage losses must come out of the factors actually in the Corps when movement is completed.
• Corps counters may be removed as a result of forage losses only if all factors that were part of the Corps during its movement are lost to foraging. If only one factor remains after foraging losses are removed, that factor must be in the Corps and the Corps counter must be left on the map .
If all Corps counters in an area are removed due to foraging losses, any leaders with the removed Corps are immediately removed from the map. They may be returned to the map during any later Army Reinforcement Step.
7.4.2 REGULAR (DEPOT) SUPPLY
After the movement and foraging of Corps is complete, any Corps or besieged port garrisons which did not forage must now pay for supply. Depot supply, while costing money prevents the chance of army factors being lost. Paying for depot supply is as follows:
7.4.2.1 Paying for Depot Supply
Any Corps in a depot area or that can trace an unblocked route to a depot may use depot supply. Besieged port city garrisons (regardless of size) may also use depot supply. The costs for all Corps are summed and up, that amount then being deducted from that Major Power’s current treasury. A Major Power may not use depot supply for a Corps if it doesn’t have enough money to pay the cost and such Corps must instead forage for supply.
7.4.2.1.1 Corps Depot Supply
A Corps in the same area as a depot being part of a valid supply chain costs $.5 to supply. Other Corps up to three unblocked areas away from a depot pay the number of areas they are away from a depot in a valid supply chain in money points .
7.4. 2 Depot Supply
Corps or besieged port city garrisons may use depot supply by paying the following per corps and/or garrison


$0.5 in depot area
$1.0 in adjacent area
$2.0 two unblocked area away
$3.0 three unblocked areas away
All costs are doubled during winter
7.4.2.1.1.1 Limited Supply per Depot (OPTIONAL)
A depot may supply a maximum of four Corps .
7.4.2.1.2 Besieged Port Garrison Depot Supply
Besieged port city garrisons using sea supply through a depot in the port city cost $.5 per 10 garrison factors to supply.
7.4.2.1.3 Winter Depot Supply Costs
All supply costs are doubled in winter for Corps or garrisons not within the Mediterranean zone (9.2.3).
7.4.2.2 Allied Depot Supply
Major Powers may have their forces live off the depots and/or supply chains of their Allies or Kingdoms, but those Allies or Kingdoms must pay the costs involved. Naturally, permission is required for this, with supply being paid for by the Major Power or Kingdom owning the depot at the time it is required."

From EiH 4.0 - there are some changes up to 5.2.




oldtimer -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/5/2007 6:50:51 PM)

Brad Hunter thanks for typing out the Foraging information. I didn't have time for that.




oldtimer -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/5/2007 6:54:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank McNally

Is the +2 cap on forage owing to other corps applied after you subtract the unused MP or is it applied first such that in your example, you would have +2 for othr corps -2 for unused MP = 0 modifier?



We applied it per my example in the group I played. That was one of the reasons I referred to it as "Arguments in Arms." Sometimes the rules were a little ambiguous to their meaning and based on a situation people would argue like in a courtroom to win their point. Once we had a consensus though we typically kept it that way unless something in an errata came out to change it.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875