oldtimer -> RE: Stacking in Computer EiA (7/22/2007 6:04:25 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: j-s We have had a face-to-face game going on in last few weeks. Every week there has been stacks about 18 corps + leaders (usually Charles). I was wondering how big advantage this original idea of stacking limit is to France, becouse biggest stack that I had (I play France) was 14 corps, 1 debot and 5 leaders. In that time, Germans had a stack of 20 corps+leaders and I won that fight. France had 233 factors present and germans had 233 factors. So please, no stacking limits. (ok, that 30 would be better, but I still don't see a reason why to do this) Your own example answers your question. France wouldn't be able to have all that they did in the stack. You have 20 items stacked (5 ldrs, 1 depot, 14 corp) what 5 items wil you remove from your stack. As for the coalition you said 20 corp + leaders what 5+ items are they to remove from their stack? Now there is no way for the coalition to have equal numbers or superior numbers so the coalition strategy of attrition pretty much goes out the door. This is now a mute point since they raised it to 30 items in a stack as I have never seen that much in a stack ever. Now on to Monadman's reply concerning the stacking being raised to 30 (thanks). As to unlimited depot supply while that is in line with the original rules I thank a future optional rule to change that to 4 corp per depot may need to be seriously looked at. That is one optional rule I have NEVER seen left out of a game. So I guess in truth I do not know how the boardgame would play without that rule. I thank it favors the French more because of their superior movement and without it it gives a BIG advantage to the coalition forces because it make HUGE stacks and supply lines MUCH easier. I mean in winter 20 corp and 1 depot costs you $20 to supply. This makes winter combat very practical. With the optional rule you may be shelling out $20 to feed 12 corp and foraging with 8 corp. For a very costly loss of troops. Makes winter combat very expensive. This changes strategy greatly because now winter can't be as readily used to spread corp, cut costs, and get a break from battle. This allows coalition forces to continually attack with the greater amount of income generated by the coalition forces. Spain and Turkey are typically a drain on the French Empire, whereas only Prussia is really the drain on the coalition forces. They will ave more money to operate with and force France to possibly forage more in winter due to lack of funds. This can actually balance the game greatly in favor of the coalition forces in forcing France to surrender unconditionally as their army can't survive through winter and the French can't recruit troops to save money. Just a quick a dirty thought on a coalition strategy plan.
|
|
|
|