Game Balance breakers??

Game Balance breakers?? (Full Version)

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

Message

timothy_stone -> Game Balance breakers?? (12/2/2007 6:07:20 PM)
Just spotted something (I'm just getting caught up on the matrix game after snoozing for 4 years while the game languished) that makes me wonder if that in CEiA lending units works very differently from EiA I really hope Ralegh (or any other beta tester/matrix person) can tell us I'm misreading what ralegh says or it opens up so many difficulties. quote: P3. Why try to ally with other (computer controlled) countries? So you can ask them for money of course! You can also ask for access through their country, and lend units. (You can't request supply from the AI, which is a shame.) [snip] P4. Why lend a unit to an ally? So the unit can move in their turn: this is the only way to achieve that in EIANW. *******Note also that such a unit could be used against an enemy you are not at war with (example: while remaining neutral, Spain lends all her fleets to France, who uses them against the British*****[my emphasis]) (from ralegh's guide/tips http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1609122 ) Do you mean that your ships can be used to carry FR troops (and possibly be attacked by GB) as in the original EiA rules? Or do you mean that corps/fleets on loan no longer act like their original nationality, but 'change nationality' and thus can ATTACK UNITS YOU ARE NOT AT WAR WITH?? If the second, this is a huge change for experienced players and would have massive affects. For Example: Often, a nation fighting against an alliance (e.g. France against Russia/GB/Austria/Prussia)will surrender to some, but remain at war against others - in the hopes of defeating the remaining powers to recoup the -8pps lost for surrendering (unconditionally). For example, in the case above, France's army of 150 could be facing 400 allied (150 rus 150 au 50pr 50gb) factors. (just making up numbers for the example) In normal EiA, france could surrender to all but Prussia, and even at worst (taking heavy army losses in the peace picks) hope with his remnant of 80-100 factors to then be able to smash the 50 prussians, and make them surrender unconditionally This both helps FR recover from the pp loss of surrender AND (with the extended peace pick) lets FR avoid PR joining the alliance in 18 months if a fr/alliance war breaks out again. BUT - this is how it would play out with the corps-loan 1) France surrenders to all but Prussia 2) every one loans their corps to Prussia. 3) now france's 100 men face prussia's 400 men... and FR's prospects are as bleak this blows a hole in one of the primary tactics used by FR to have a chance against overwhelming alliances, and very seriously changes the game balance More gimmicks that could be pulled with this if the rule works the 2nd way: (1) as GB's ally, the russians land 100 factors in London. next turn, Rus loans those 100 factors to France. France now owns London... (for those of you who don't know the game and would say 'well, Rus could just do the same by landing in London then declaring war the next turn -- the EiA rules specifically forbid declaring war on another power if you have forces in his nation) (2) in a reverse tactic, say russia has been caught napping and Napoleon with all his corps is descending on the undefended cream of the Russian army (just the Artillery, Guard and Cavalry, no infantry or militia to absorb losses) (or, if you dislike the hypothetical, the situation is often like this right after a battle with heavy losses - say rather that Russia has lost all his inf/mil and all that remains is the 'quality') In a normal game, Russia will be faced with hundreds of dollars of losses, and the only way to save them is to either surrender, or to pin your hopes on rolling low enough to withdraw (again, for newbies losses of cavalry guard and artillery can take russia game-years to replace). If the 'lending corps' in CEiA actually changes the national 'identity', all Russia has to do is 'lend' his quality corps to a nation at peace with FR and 'poof' - they disappear from danger. They can be safely marched to an area with sufficient militia/infantry, returned, and Russia is back in business. 3) Sp gets lazy, puts the entire fleet to sea. GB Declares war on SP. Rather than watching his fleet sink, SP loans his ships to Turkey (who is at peace with GB). Turkey moves them safely to port since he is at 'peace' with GB. So.... !Please! tell me I'm wrong, and you just mean that the SP ships can be used to carry the FR corps (like in normal EiA) not that they 'become FR'

oldtimer -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/2/2007 8:46:21 PM)
Timothy_stone makes a VERY valid case here. This can throw the balance of the game especially for France into disorder. In the board game, GB could attack the SP fleet transporting the FR forces and SP could, even if in an enforced peace, declare war on GB. How does the game address 'Combined move - gifted corp' and the peace condition 'Corp on loan'? I think this needs to be answered because people will take advantage of game mechanic exploits. That was how EiA gained the "Arguments in Arms" title and house rules came about.

Monadman -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/2/2007 11:43:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timothy_stone So.... !Please! tell me I'm wrong, and you just mean that the SP ships can be used to carry the FR corps (like in normal EiA) not that they 'become FR' Okay, you’re wrong and so is P4 in the Ralegh Guide. 1. Corps on loan can only be used against a common enemy otherwise the program will ignore them in battle. 2. EiANW does not allow major power allies to loan fleets. Richard

Irish Guards -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 1:39:59 AM)
Send a copy of the rules pls ... [:-] Is this an Alliance question ... [&:] Corps or fleet on loan through Surrender ... You cant just lend units ... [:'(] Russians breaking an Alliance when they occupy London ... Can there be 2 countries units in the same space and still be able to DoW ... Nay .. Units transported by neutral fleets and combat .. Hmmmm .. You can't even move neutral fleets .. If they are lent they are fair game ... Same applies I would think .. You cant move a neutral unit .. .... 1. Corps on loan can only be used against a common enemy otherwise the program will ignore them in battle. Exactly what does ignore them mean .... Through Surrender ... Alliance being broken .. [&:] IrishDragoonGuards

yammahoper -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 1:52:11 AM)
All those problems can be averted with simple rule addendum such as: only unbeseiged corps in a friendly capital area with no enemy corps in any adjacent area may be used to loan to an ally or be taken as a piece condition. Now, how does that get programmed in? yamma

sol_invictus -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 2:04:23 AM)
I'm begining to understand why this game has had such a tortured developement.

Monadman -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 2:10:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irish Guards 1. Corps on loan can only be used against a common enemy otherwise the program will ignore them in battle. Exactly what does ignore them mean .... Through Surrender ... Alliance being broken .. [&:] IrishDragoonGuards The corps on loan surrender condition does not exist in EiANW. We are talking about the function that was designed to replace Combine Movement due to programming restrictions (“Loan Unit”). Similar in some respects, it allows allies to lend units during the diplomacy phase so that they may move as one during the borrowers land phase. For instance, if France and Spain were allies, Spain could loan one or more corps to France and France would be able to move them during the French land phase. If France moved against Austria with a loan corps from Spain and Spain was not involved in a war with Austria, the program would ignore the Spanish forces in battle. Conversely, if Austria attacked the French forces that also contained a neutral Spanish corps on loan to France, the program would ignore the Spanish corps in battle. Richard

Murat -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 5:47:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monadman The corps on loan surrender condition does not exist in EiANW. We are talking about the function that was designed to replace Combine Movement due to programming restrictions (“Loan Unit”). Similar in some respects, it allows allies to lend units during the diplomacy phase so that they may move as one during the borrowers land phase. For instance, if France and Spain were allies, Spain could loan one or more corps to France and France would be able to move them during the French land phase. If France moved against Austria with a loan corps from Spain and Spain was not involved in a war with Austria, the program would ignore the Spanish forces in battle. Conversely, if Austria attacked the French forces that also contained a neutral Spanish corps on loan to France, the program would ignore the Spanish corps in battle. Richard OK but does France still get to select when it moves each land phase and are they allowed to then move these loaned corps at that time? Alliances will be much more critical if this is the case. quote: ORIGINAL: Monadman 2. EiANW does not allow major power allies to loan fleets. Richard So Britain won out here since unlike land movement, allies cannot combine move nor transport their allies units?

oldtimer -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 5:57:38 AM)
Everyone is missing the point. In this version of EiA the way the program handles "Combined Moves" is instead of 2 nations moving at the time of the slower nation, One nation 'gives/loans' the corp it wants to combine move with its allied nation. For example: GB and FR are at war. FR and SP are allied. SP is at peace or an enforced peace with GB. FR and SP do a combined move. FR loans SP however many corp. FR moves its own corp (non-loaned) in FR land phase. SP moves its corp plus the FR loaned corp during the SP land / naval phase. The question is are the corp in the combined move looked at by the computer as SP units or FR units? The answer WILL affect how the GB player can respond to the FR corp on loan (combined move) to SP. This is my understanding of how I understand timothy_stones questions and explanations in general over the years on how 'combined moves' work. The other question related to this is taking the above example, but SP is also at war with GB. Can FR attack GB corp during its move and then SP at GB corp with FR 'combined move' corp thus hitting GB 2x in one turn? Monadman and Murat wrote back while I was writing. I see Monadman's point for land that is easy. But how does it apply in Naval? If SP transports FR 'combined move' forces can GB attack the SP fleet since they are not at war and the FR corp are in a 'combined move' status? Murat is saying that one nation cannot transport corp from another nation. This is a dramatic change to the EiA rules and will definitly help GB in a major way.

timothy_stone -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 8:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monadman quote: ORIGINAL: timothy_stone So.... !Please! tell me I'm wrong, and you just mean that the SP ships can be used to carry the FR corps (like in normal EiA) not that they 'become FR' Okay, you’re wrong and so is P4 in the Ralegh Guide. 1. Corps on loan can only be used against a common enemy otherwise the program will ignore them in battle. 2. EiANW does not allow major power allies to loan fleets. Richard Thanks, i had originally thought that the 'loan corps' option would be programmed as described in your post (it's what makes sense), it's just that Ralegh's offhand comment "can be used against people you are not at war with" opened up a further range of possibilities, none of them pleasant. So thanks again for the clarification However: if you can not loan fleets, as Oldtimer says: that is a huge new advantage for GB. It makes the anti-GB naval alliance all the more difficult. I suppose that will be offset somewhat by not being able to react in person during the naval phase, but having the computer do all your reactions for you. It's still a big one though

Monadman -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 8:28:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Murat quote: ORIGINAL: Monadman The corps on loan surrender condition does not exist in EiANW. We are talking about the function that was designed to replace Combine Movement due to programming restrictions (“Loan Unit”). Similar in some respects, it allows allies to lend units during the diplomacy phase so that they may move as one during the borrowers land phase. For instance, if France and Spain were allies, Spain could loan one or more corps to France and France would be able to move them during the French land phase. If France moved against Austria with a loan corps from Spain and Spain was not involved in a war with Austria, the program would ignore the Spanish forces in battle. Conversely, if Austria attacked the French forces that also contained a neutral Spanish corps on loan to France, the program would ignore the Spanish corps in battle. Richard OK but does France still get to select when it moves each land phase and are they allowed to then move these loaned corps at that time? Alliances will be much more critical if this is the case. Yes quote: ORIGINAL: Murat So Britain won out here since unlike land movement, allies cannot combine move nor transport their allies units? They cannot combine move fleets, but one ally can transport another ally’s corps (if access into port is given). The problem with EiANW in its current state, is that it allows this action to occur without consequences (i.e. Britain could not attack a Spanish fleet that was carrying a British enemy). Hope to see this fixed post-release. Richard

Monadman -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 8:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldtimer But how does it apply in Naval? If SP transports FR 'combined move' forces can GB attack the SP fleet since they are not at war and the FR corp are in a 'combined move' status? Unfortunately no, Britain could not attack the Spanish fleet that was carrying a British enemy. Hope to see this fixed post-release. Richard

timothy_stone -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 8:50:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monadman quote: ORIGINAL: oldtimer But how does it apply in Naval? If SP transports FR 'combined move' forces can GB attack the SP fleet since they are not at war and the FR corp are in a 'combined move' status? Unfortunately no, Britain could not attack the Spanish fleet that was carrying a British enemy. Hope to see this fixed post-release. Richard Hmm. Well, what that means is GB is forced to DoW any nation that has fleets stacked with enemy corps (e.g. spanish fleets in a port that contains FR corps) - otherwise there's no way to stop the invasion. that's a pain for poor GB, with pbem i guess we'll have to put in a house-rule about that. Otherwise rus/sp/tu can force GB into spending DoWs at will if they desire. Can the GM (host player) change any of the settings? (i.e. can he set GB to At War with SP for no pp.s, then set them to Peace after the fleet/corps issue is settled?) That's a pretty huge oversight, guys - I'm surprised there's been no mention of that. Any more surprises in store that change the old EiA balance?

Odysseus -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 9:19:54 AM)
Wouldn't that be kinda realistic, though? I mean as far as international law and the law of the sea worked at that time? I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that if GB would attack a ship of a neutral country, it would, from a legal point of view, be equal to an attack on the actual soil of the country that flags the ship. I.e. a de facto declaration of war. And whatever the ship might be carrying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law in that regard. So, surely, such an attack would not be taken very lightly by the nation being attacked. I mean, it might deviate from the old EiA rules, but maybe it's more realistic in some sense... I dunno, just playing devil's advocate here...

Murat -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 11:59:23 AM)
Both need to be fixed at the same time. You need to allow fleets to be loaned AND you need to allow Britain to be able to attack neutral fleets transporting hostile corps. Naval combined move is just as important as land.

timothy_stone -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 12:06:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Odysseus Wouldn't that be kinda realistic, though? I mean as far as international law and the law of the sea worked at that time? I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that if GB would attack a ship of a neutral country, it would, from a legal point of view, be equal to an attack on the actual soil of the country that flags the ship. I.e. a de facto declaration of war. And whatever the ship might be carrying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law in that regard. So, surely, such an attack would not be taken very lightly by the nation being attacked. I mean, it might deviate from the old EiA rules, but maybe it's more realistic in some sense... I dunno, just playing devil's advocate here... the game has a balance, for which some realism sacrifices are of course made. Though i hardly think that even from the 'realism' argument you could say that carrying a force of invading frenchmen would be 'irrelevant in the eyes of the law'... and the eyes of the law (especially at sea) were not quite as far-seeing as they are now (think privateers, press-gangs, etc). Realistically I can easily see a british fleet cheerfully sinking a spanish fleet chock-full of Napoleon's finest trying to cross the channel. Nor would the British admiral bother to ask Whitehall for permission first. I agree with you that such an attack would Not be taken lightly by the nation attacked, but they then (in the game and in reality) have the option of DoW'ing GB for it. No one would question the British Admirals actions though. In those days they had not sunk to the ridiculous levels of today

Monadman -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 3:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timothy_stone quote: ORIGINAL: Monadman quote: ORIGINAL: oldtimer But how does it apply in Naval? If SP transports FR 'combined move' forces can GB attack the SP fleet since they are not at war and the FR corp are in a 'combined move' status? Unfortunately no, Britain could not attack the Spanish fleet that was carrying a British enemy. Hope to see this fixed post-release. Richard Hmm. Well, what that means is GB is forced to DoW any nation that has fleets stacked with enemy corps (e.g. spanish fleets in a port that contains FR corps) - otherwise there's no way to stop the invasion. that's a pain for poor GB, with pbem i guess we'll have to put in a house-rule about that. Otherwise rus/sp/tu can force GB into spending DoWs at will if they desire. Can the GM (host player) change any of the settings? (i.e. can he set GB to At War with SP for no pp.s, then set them to Peace after the fleet/corps issue is settled?) That's a pretty huge oversight, guys - I'm surprised there's been no mention of that. Any more surprises in store that change the old EiA balance? No, it is a fix that must be made (per EiA 6.3.1.2) and it was not an oversight. Quite frankly (as always), I view EiANW as “a playable work in progress”. I’m warning you now, that there will be other issues similar to this that require fixes (e.g. infantry corps movement allowance should increase to “4” when specific minor countries become French controlled Free States) or rule omissions that need to be added (e.g. Implement all the rules that apply to the Dardanelles). Most of the issues are known and documented for a post-release fix. At the moment however, within hours of EiANW’s debut, the question is prioritization of Marshall’s schedule but no one on this end is ready to rest on any laurels. We hit the release running . . . Richard

sol_invictus -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/3/2007 4:21:09 PM)
I agree with timothy, any Spanish fleet or fleet of any nation that was cruising in the Bay of Biscay, Channel, or North Atlantic with a French Army on board would have been immediately attacked and the British admiral would have been celebrated as a hero. The British were very picky about what was afloat at this time, be it soldiers or cargo, and weren't shy about being very aggressive in getting their way.

Irish Guards -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/4/2007 1:23:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monadman quote: ORIGINAL: oldtimer But how does it apply in Naval? If SP transports FR 'combined move' forces can GB attack the SP fleet since they are not at war and the FR corp are in a 'combined move' status? Unfortunately no, Britain could not attack the Spanish fleet that was carrying a British enemy. Hope to see this fixed post-release. Richard And then the French land in London ... Or the Spanish ... [X(] What ... Oh Dear ... [8\|] Need rules pls ..... Thanks IrishDragoonGuards

oldtimer -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/4/2007 6:47:55 AM)
quote: Wouldn't that be kinda realistic, though? I mean as far as international law and the law of the sea worked at that time? I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that if GB would attack a ship of a neutral country, it would, from a legal point of view, be equal to an attack on the actual soil of the country that flags the ship. I.e. a de facto declaration of war. And whatever the ship might be carrying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law in that regard. So, surely, such an attack would not be taken very lightly by the nation being attacked. I mean, it might deviate from the old EiA rules, but maybe it's more realistic in some sense... I dunno, just playing devil's advocate here... Actually the board game did take this into account when a warring nation attacks a neutrals fleet transporting corp from a nation it is at war with. This is I believe the only case in which the neutral transporting nation could actually declare war on the attacking power regardless of an enforced peace and do a DOW during a NAVAL phase. It had to be done at the time of the attack. i.e. GB is at war with FR. SP who is Allied with FR (or both) is transporting FR corp. GB attacks the SP fleet transporting the corp. SP could then at its option Declare War on GB at that moment paying all PP cost or else let GB attack and the results are the results and peace continues for the time being between SP and GB. It is however an issue that does need to be addressed if GB can not (or any nation) attack fleets transporting enemy corp. This I feel has a bigger negative impact on GB. I recall there might be something similar to this in the land phase but I can't remember. My mind is getting old.

timothy_stone -> RE: Game Balance breakers?? (12/4/2007 9:43:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldtimer quote: Wouldn't that be kinda realistic, though? I mean as far as international law and the law of the sea worked at that time? I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that if GB would attack a ship of a neutral country, it would, from a legal point of view, be equal to an attack on the actual soil of the country that flags the ship. I.e. a de facto declaration of war. And whatever the ship might be carrying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law in that regard. So, surely, such an attack would not be taken very lightly by the nation being attacked. I mean, it might deviate from the old EiA rules, but maybe it's more realistic in some sense... I dunno, just playing devil's advocate here... Actually the board game did take this into account when a warring nation attacks a neutrals fleet transporting corp from a nation it is at war with. This is I believe the only case in which the neutral transporting nation could actually declare war on the attacking power regardless of an enforced peace and do a DOW during a NAVAL phase. It had to be done at the time of the attack. i.e. GB is at war with FR. SP who is Allied with FR (or both) is transporting FR corp. GB attacks the SP fleet transporting the corp. SP could then at its option Declare War on GB at that moment paying all PP cost or else let GB attack and the results are the results and peace continues for the time being between SP and GB. It is however an issue that does need to be addressed if GB can not (or any nation) attack fleets transporting enemy corp. This I feel has a bigger negative impact on GB. I recall there might be something similar to this in the land phase but I can't remember. My mind is getting old. The game gives GB (not SP) in this case the option of attacking without DoW, or of immediately declaring war (Even if there is an enforced peace) then attacking The other side ('neutral' but carrying enemy corps) would have to wait for the next DoW phase if they wanted to DoW, and would not be able to if there was an enforced peace. The only land equivalent is the optional rule of forcible access (e.g. if France and Au are not allied (or allied but Au denies access), and FR wants to pass through AU lands he may do so at the cost of -1pp each turn he forces his way into austrean areas. If FR does force access, AU may immediately declare war. This has to happen immediately (though the chance is given each time a counter forcing access moves) Au could DoW in spite of enforced peace (but may NOT DoW if he already has forces in the country he wishes to DoW - in this case if an Au garrison was in FR lands, Au could not DoW FR) I don't remember if forcible access is included in CEiA, it was a late-comer to the game (a rule added in the erratta)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375