Please include in patch!!! (Full Version)

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



Message

dodod -> Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 3:09:57 AM)

I just did a test with prussia and austria attacking france with loaned corp to austria...under charles.

Political points not gained/lost by prussia!!!

this makes allying much less useful!

I believe the board game would give/lose political points to both parties. This makes the dynamics of weaker nations much much worse.

This has to be easy to correct. can you please correct this.



Mardonius -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 3:55:29 AM)

Concur. This is critical.



Murat -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 4:37:03 AM)

Well now we know the answer. No pp.



Soapy Frog -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 7:53:40 AM)

How could something like that go this long unnoticed? In many ways it is a game-breaker.



zaquex -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 10:23:39 AM)

I think this has been known and was reported by Marshall very early



fvianello -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 12:59:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

I just did a test with prussia and austria attacking france with loaned corp to austria...under charles.

Political points not gained/lost by prussia!!!

this makes allying much less useful!

I believe the board game would give/lose political points to both parties. This makes the dynamics of weaker nations much much worse.

This has to be easy to correct. can you please correct this.


I agree, critical bug....almost no point in loaning corps.



AresMars -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 6:41:30 PM)

How did this get by the Playtesters?

There had to be AT LEAST one experienced boardgame EIA player in that group....

Now, I am disappointed in this current version of the game.....

Could/would Matrix comment on this issue?



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 11:00:41 PM)

It was not in the loaned corps design to give pp to the loaner as well. This wasn't missed by the testers but not part of the original loaned corps function design. I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous. Anybody else have an opinion?

BTW:ALL of the testers are experienced EiA board gamers and AGAIN, this was NOT their miss.



AresMars -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/9/2008 11:28:18 PM)

Marshall,

The basic tenet of the game (1805 Grand Campaign) is to amass Victory Points (VP) through the winning of Political Points (PP) towards a goal total in a specific time frame.

This is normally done by several of the following methods;

a) Land battles, Sieges and Naval battles
b) Economic Manipulation
c) Control of and the political manipulation of Conquered, Minor and Free States
d) the creation of Kingdoms and new political combinations
e) others I may have missed

In the original game (based on my limited and possibly faulty memory), Allies could share (and should share) in the risk/reward of PP gain and loss through Combined Movement and shared economic combat losses.

If the current EIANW _CORPS on LOAN_ is the PC version of combined movement, where did you include the Political risk/reward then?

Did none of the testers mention this important point from the EiA game?  Did they not feel that it was critical or important?

I am sure that the bulk of your testers are much more experienced and capable then I , however, having played the game often this will always remain true and required IMHO....the comments of others (seem to me) to concur...

I mean no disrespect to you or your playtesters, but I am very surprised

Prussia and Austria need Allies against the French PP machine (Nappy and the French Army) and this requirement is most often is seen by Allies (Gb, Rs) including a corps or two (1 PP) to the various Armies for a possible 3PP gain, at the risk of a small portion of their total armies.  Also, Spain will be looking for Gb help when the French come calling.....

ADDED: Please excuse the negative tone of this post....




Soapy Frog -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 12:09:04 AM)

I agree with AresMars on all points.

Also one more thing... It's THE RULES. Participants in a land or naval battle all GAIN PP according to the number of enemy corps/fleets invovled in case of a win, or LOSE PP according to the number of THEIR corps/fleets involved in case of a loss. It is an important part of the game balance.

If this was deliberately left out, and agreed to by the playtesters, I am a little flabbergasted.



dauphan129 -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 12:26:48 AM)

While in a situation where you had combined movement, joint planning on where to attack and 5 minute "Strategy Diplomacy" (House Rule) amongst Allies I can see what Ares Mars and Soapy Frog are saying here. In the PC game though at present we have no Combined Movement so if I were say Prussia I have to give my corps to Austria and hope for the best. I am not sure that I should have to pay in PP if Austria lost the battle.

Here is a couple thoughts though:
quote:

From the Board Game rules
7.5.2.10.1.3 Political Points For Winning/Losing Field Combats: The victor now gains political points and the loser loses them, recorded on the POLITICAL STATUS DISPLAY on the Status Card). Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of "+ 3" political points. For this purpose a single corps which begins or reinforces a battle with more than 20 factors in it is treated as 2 corps.

quote:

From Ares Mars
Prussia and Austria need Allies against the French PP machine (Nappy and the French Army) and this requirement is most often is seen by Allies (Gb, Rs) including a corps or two (1 PP) to the various Armies for a possible 3PP gain, at the risk of a small portion of their total armies. Also, Spain will be looking for Gb help when the French come calling.....


Ares example seems wrong.
If you have 2 Prussian corp 2 Autria corps and 1 GB corps (Total five corps) fighting five France Corps and Austria/Prussia/GB win they each get +3 PP.
If they loose they each loose -3 PP not -1 each.
Notice the rule says : Half a political point is gained or lost for each corps of the defeated side.
Not half a PP for each of your countries participating Corps.

I may have mis-read your example but it looked like you were saying GB could risk -1pp for a potential gain of +3 pp. I apologize if that was not what you are trying to say here.
quote:


Also one more thing... It's THE RULES. Participants in a land or naval battle all GAIN PP according to the number of enemy corps/fleets invovled in case of a win, or LOSE PP according to the number of THEIR corps/fleets involved in case of a loss. It is an important part of the game balance.

This is also an incorrect statement. Everyone on a side looses or gains the exact same amount.
Don't worry we did this wrong in board games for a few years as well.



dodod -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 12:43:47 AM)

I think the political point issue is vital and absolutely necessary.  If you participate in a battle, you should gain or lose the appropriate PR (political points).  When wars were fought, sometimes the allied cavalry was the cause of the victory and thus become legendary...or the artillery, etc.  I think without combined movement, this is the only way to have vested interest in each others' successes and failures as allies.

I think this should be in an early patch! Many PBEM games will suffer as a consequence of this lack of rule.  If people want it as an option not to do it fine, but the game rule should be default with this ON!!!!

This also enables france to get some allies...otherwise, it will be gang up on france because they will be the only ones to gain the napoleon advantage, etc...why would anyone loan a corp to france??? ever!

edit: Murat, I know they get PP on another front. But the incentive to fight may not be there if there is no PP to gain from battles. France can tell Spain, "if you help me, you get lots of PP from winning!!!" Spain can't do anything against Austria or Prussia on any front!



Murat -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 12:46:10 AM)

dauphan, you misread. Victory againt the 5 French corps awards +3pp each to Prussia, Austria and Britain while France loses 3pp. If France wins the same battle they gain 3pp but Prussia and Austria each go -2pp and Britain goes -1pp (1/2pp per corp involved rounded up).

ON a side note I always hated the PP generating machine as it was sort of artificial and it provided a net + pressure on the VP chart. I like the way the computer game has it in that whomever leads the stack handles the risks and rewards.

dodod, people can gain PP by not lending corps they just battle on another front.



Mynok -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 1:07:53 AM)


I don't recall corps loaning being a major PP generator in the boardgames I played. Maybe we just weren't inventive enough. [:D]




Soapy Frog -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 1:40:57 AM)

PP generator? That doesn't make sense. It's a vital game mechanic. Even if it worked the way Dauphan says it would be better than the current state.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  dauphan129
While in a situation where you had combined movement, joint planning on where to attack and 5 minute "Strategy Diplomacy" (House Rule) amongst Allies I can see what Ares Mars and Soapy Frog are saying here.   In the PC game though at present we have no Combined Movement so if I were say Prussia I have to give my corps to Austria and hope for the best.  I am not sure that I should have to pay in PP if Austria lost the battle.

You contribute the forces you should share the risk and the reward of battle. The fact that the computer game does not allow you to control your corps when you want to combine forces with an ally is a an issue that does not change the fundamental mechanics necessary to the game.

AresMars stated the argument in the best possible terms. My addition to that is that you are officially tearing up the "guts" of the game without understanding how you are affecting it. The Naval changes, the minor changes, somewhat cosmetic, but this kind of thing is really starting to dig at the heart of the game.

I should add that as Prussia, for example, loaning away your whole army to the allied cause is ALREADY not very fun (dont even get to move your own pieces!). Now you are totally disinterested in the result except insofar as how many dead Prussians are handed back to you.



JavaJoe -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 1:48:29 AM)

I say yes any corps involved in a battle share the glory and the shame. Part of the decision making matrix, If I loan my British corps to the Prussian is he dopey enough to ram it into the entire French army without Blucher attached?

Now the amount of pps gained and lost is the next question.

+ 1/2 gained by the victor for each enemy corps on the losing side.

- 1/2 lost by the loser for each of his corps participating.

So a loaned corps can gobble up PP's if it is part of a grand coalition fighting a multi stacked foe.

Not much downside if you lose. This was the intention.



dodod -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:10:47 AM)

please please please put this in the patch.  Prussia has no leaders for a year.  Spain and Turkey never have good leaders...they would benefit from this enormously.  I can't believe Econ manipulation is in the game and not this.

It seems that combined movement is completely robbed in this game and there is little advantage in working TOGETHER which is a major part of the game.  If someone wants to depend on PP gained from battles, they should be able to.  It is their strategy.

I personally can't believe this isn't in the game already!!




Monadman -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:16:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

It was not in the loaned corps design to give pp to the loaner as well. This wasn't missed by the testers but not part of the original loaned corps function design. I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous. Anybody else have an opinion?

BTW:ALL of the testers are experienced EiA board gamers and AGAIN, this was NOT their miss.




quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Did none of the testers mention this important point from the EiA game? Did they not feel that it was critical or important?

I am sure that the bulk of your testers are much more experienced and capable then I , however, having played the game often this will always remain true and required IMHO....the comments of others (seem to me) to concur...

I mean no disrespect to you or your playtesters, but I am very surprised




You’re preaching to the choir pal.

What part of “NOT” did you not understand, the N the O or the T?

See if you can understand this any better. It did not matter how many times an issue was explained, demanded, or argued about, if Marshall said he could not do it, we were left with two choices; quit or move on to the next problem on a very long list of problems.

This project would still be back in the dark ages if we had not compromised on many issues at the time and never was it written in stone that once a decision was made on an issue we could not later return to it.

Recommendation: if you feel something is missing that is imperative to game, give commentary without pointing fingers.

Thanks

Richard



dauphan129 -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:28:37 AM)

OK I am fine with it being in the game but it works as I explained in the game. People read a supposed "their" into the "each" part of the rule. Their is not there. This is the most argued rule I know as far as the split lost pp. If it is implemented (and that would be cool) it still is -.5pp per corps to all losers not just for their corps. Read the rule slowly a few times out loud. That is what I had to do to figure it out. It is not well worded but it is specific.



dauphan129 -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:31:11 AM)

And I totally hear you Monadman.  Thank you all so much for getting us all this far.



AresMars -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:32:44 AM)

dauphan129,

I am afraid that you are correct in your understanding of my post.  (but I do respect your point...I just disgree!)

_Political Glory_ to the all the Winners of a battle, but the political effects of _lost is proporotional_ to your participation. (Eh, you lost against <Major Power> - Nice Try!)

I would also hazard a guess that "most" EIA players agree with the method I proposed.  (I could be wrong and if you disagree, speak out)

Now, I double checked the most current version of the EiH rules that I could find (v5.2) and found the following: 

7.5.2.10.1.3     Political Points for Winning/Losing Field Combats

The victor now gains political points and the loser loses them, recorded on the Political Status Display on the Status Card. Half a political point is gained or lost for each Corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes Corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing Corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of “+/-3” political points. For this purpose a single Corps which begins or reinforces a battle with more than 20 factors in it is treated as two Corps for this purpose,  A city garrison which participates in the battle counts as one Corps for this purpose. Political points are only awarded/lost if there are more than two strength points on each side, unless in areas with a capital (red) city. If forces of more than one Major Power are present, the commander of the victorious side gains any and all political points, while each Major Power on the losing side loses political points based on the number of its Corps present, rounded up.[1]


[1] For example: a four Corps Ottoman force defeats a force containing, two Russian Corps, one Austrian Corps, a Prussian city garrison and three Spanish Corps commanded by a Spanish leader. The Ottomans would gain “+3” political points (six Corps on the losing side), while Russia would lose “-1” political point, Austria would lose “-1” political point, Prussia would lose “-1” political point and Spain would lose “-2” political points. If the Ottoman force was defeated, Spain would gain “+2” political points, while the Ottoman would lose “-2” political points.

Slighty different with only the LEADER of the Winning Side getting the political points, but the CORE CONCEPT remains the same as my understanding....

[NOTE: I only referenced EiH v5.2 as an example of the core concept and as the EiH rules have been worked on for years by avid, experienced FANS of the orginal EIA and as being part of the source upon which EIANW is based...]

IMHO, this concept is important for many reasons to the success of any 1805 Grand Campaign EIA game.

a) Keeps France a little more isolated from having too many Allies for too long.
(Hey face it, in the 1805 Grand Campaign, the French don't need much help....Good Leaders, Big army, lots of Minors with CORPS in easy reach)
(and France would not allow anyone to ride their Coattails for too long, as the PP/VP effect would be quickly felt by the Ally.....)

b) Allows a Coalition to form several Armies (ie. one under Charles 446, one under Blucher 345 and one under Kurasov 344, even Welligton 553) and force the French to fight on several fronts
(thus avoid allowing Nappy to always be leading every French battle and possibly gaining the extra +1 PP each time! and to avoid the French Super Stack effect)

c) Allows Major powers who are struggling vis a vis PP or VP, to hook their cart to an Ally for a boost or to help keep the Balance of Power in a game where the French are having a rough time.
[ie.  Spain could join France versus England, Turkey could join France (vs Gb and Sp), Turkey and Austria (vs Sp or Rs), Turkey and Prussia (vs Rs), England and Spain (vs France) and others possibilities....]

D) Makes for better gaming as Allies have to 'trust' their troops to an Ally and hope the CHIT CHOICE is a GOOD one....<wink>
(Note: Nothing encouraged diplomacy and player interaction then "joint planning on where to attack and 5 minute "Strategy Diplomacy" you mentioned in your post.  Gawd I loved those!)



zaquex -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:38:16 AM)

Its not that easy to arrange those massive coalition armies. It usually takes time to get into position. Supply is another issue and the fact that french armies usually move fast makes it even harder. Then you have Diplomatic issues to further complicate things. Diplomacy doesnt always work out. Conflicts over Sweden, Poland and Naples and other important areas can often kill the creation of serious coalitions. Turkey can also be a pain and ensure that either Russia or Austria cant fully contribute and with a smart French player taking victory conditions to ensure that not all of the potential enemies can declare war at the same time the possibilities of a big anti-French coalition becomes even smaller.

Britain obviously has an advantage if he can land his armies by sea and can ususally get in position faster than most others. On the other hand, it usually takes a while for Britain to create an army that actually seriously can contribute military to a coalition army. They start with a rather small army, no leaders and a very limited manpower supply. At the time when Wellington comes in to play Britains situation is usually different, with a good leader, superior morale  and a year of building up, they definately can make a difference.

At this time though as mentioned, victory conditions can seriously couse problems for a potential coalition.

There will probably come times where a coalition is possible, the most obvious and possibly the most dangerous for France (as there is very limited possibilities for France to stop it with anything but political/diplomatic means) is a Russian-Prussian-Austrian coalition at the start of the game. But as previously mentioned, political agendas and logistic problems, winter movement and a shortage of money still makes this hard to achieve for a potential coalition.

From all EiA board games we have started, only a handful that i can remember have started with a successfull Russian-Prussian-Austrian coalition and almost always in response to a game that was abandoned and the French player declared winner early (not becouse it would have been impossible to stop him but becouse the majority of the players prefered to start over after being thoroughly and repeatedly crushed in just a few years). 

My point is, coalitions armies with more than two major powers is from my experience even in the board game rather rare and with the current rules of PP gains they will be even rarer. I believe the original rules are there too, for a good reason, promote cooperation and take the opportunity if it arises. As long as the French player is a good and experienced player, coalition armies are almost a prerequisite to stop Napoleon, unless his opponent is unreasonably lucky with chits and dice's.



Soapy Frog -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:41:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dauphan129
OK I am fine with it being in the game but it works as I explained in the game. People read a supposed "their" into the "each" part of the rule. Their is not there.

It is arguable, since the rule speaks of "each corps of the defeated side", but when the defeated side is made up of several powers, it's not just one side, i.e. there are 7 "sides" in this game. I admit in all my years of playing this game with different groups (including a few lawyers) no one ever questioned the intent of the rule.

However, like I said, even if it is to be interpreted as you say (and I can see where you are coming from, obviously), it would be better than the current state of affairs.



dauphan129 -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:47:31 AM)

AresMars

Did you copy the example or make it yourself.  Because the rule still reads:

Half a political point is gained or lost for each Corps of the defeated side (rounding fractions up) used during any round of that combat (this includes Corps in outflanking forces that never arrive, but not reinforcing Corps that do not arrive) up to a maximum of “+/-3” political points.

This means the corps add together.  You share equally and the total not just your percentage.



Soapy Frog -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:49:52 AM)

The example comes from EiH 5.2 rules. There is no example in the original rulebook as we well know ;)



AresMars -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:52:34 AM)

Zaquex,

I agree that coalitions are hard (sometimes impossible) to form, but the diplomatic efforts are fun to take part in.  <GRIN>

New players of EiA need to learn that this is a game about PP and VP (and REALLY, REALLY FUN!).....land battles are the easiest way for PP's to be gained, and there is a reason why France is big and bad in the 1805 Grand Campaign and needs 400+ VP.

And all your points are also absolutely correct (Ally conflicts, the Turkey 'fly' effect on Rs and As, French Victory Conditions, and others), I just was illustrating examples.

Your last paragraph sums it up very well.....No _one_ country can defeat any reasonable French player ALONE.....

dauphan129:

I quoted the source of the RULE I presented as an example, and you can get a copy of the EiH rules yourself to verify.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AGCFR8fx_tVYWn82Qi2LruK7BGKsypemgugrvMOXAopne240v5z5n9d0d1jeBbFobT2NXtM3g8ZDiNqd3CDeXzw5cHjXb2u6/Version%205.2.doc

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih/ is the source group for EiH for anyone who is interested.

Please, why would I make up things to prove a point?




dauphan129 -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:53:15 AM)

Very well then, I stand corrected. Just want to make sure the game stays true to form as much as we can.

Is there a link to those?




zaquex -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 2:58:44 AM)

Diplomacy in this game is not always easy, but its awsome fun. Politics and the simple but awsome combat system is what makes this game so great.



Murat -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 3:15:11 AM)

What I was saying was that I like the EIANW rule more than the old Eia rule (witht he example I listed) and the EiH rule (kindly listed by Ares) because in the EiA and EiH rules there is not a "zero sum" for the battle. EiA has a + push on the PPs, EiH has a - one. I like the commanding nation getting all or losing all. I disagree about there being no incentive to loan corps. You can form multiple stacks and mix the strengths of each nation together, Prussians getting to up their numbers by stacking with an ally and the ally being able to take more cav (Prussian) into battle across their corps.



AresMars -> RE: Please include in patch!!! (1/10/2008 3:35:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
It was not in the loaned corps design to give pp to the loaner as well. This wasn't missed by the testers but not part of the original loaned corps function design. I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous. Anybody else have an opinion?
BTW:ALL of the testers are experienced EiA board gamers and AGAIN, this was NOT their miss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars
Did none of the testers mention this important point from the EiA game? Did they not feel that it was critical or important?
I am sure that the bulk of your testers are much more experienced and capable then I , however, having played the game often this will always remain true and required IMHO....the comments of others (seem to me) to concur...
I mean no disrespect to you or your playtesters, but I am very surprised


You’re preaching to the choir pal.

What part of “NOT” did you not understand, the N the O or the T?

See if you can understand this any better. It did not matter how many times an issue was explained, demanded, or argued about, if Marshall said he could not do it, we were left with two choices; quit or move on to the next problem on a very long list of problems.

This project would still be back in the dark ages if we had not compromised on many issues at the time and never was it written in stone that once a decision was made on an issue we could not later return to it.

Recommendation: if you feel something is missing that is imperative to game, give commentary without pointing fingers.


Richard,

Your comment above is uncalled for as I did indicate that I was aware of the tone of my message. I am _not trying to_ or _intend to_ get personal with you, Marshall or anyone else

IMHO, the Choir did not sing loud enough on the point I have been trying to make is all. I still respect the game and its makers - I bought EIANW and and have no regrets.

I am not a programmer, so I cannot pretend to know what I am suggesting/requesting/begging involves - I know it means WORK for Marshall and his team and LOTS of it....

Marshall stated the following in his reponse; QUOTE "I have no problem looking at changing this if this will make the corps loaning more advantageous"....

This comment indicates that SOMETHING is possible - yes or no?

How could I know that; QUOTE "It did not matter how many times an issue was explained, demanded, or argued about, if Marshall said he could not do it..."

Well, I am the SECOND CHOIR, I spent my $60 (as did others) and I am SINGING LOUDLY for myself and any others that feel strongly about it.

If I sing alone, then I'll never comment further on this issue again.

I am not demanding anything, I cannot - Marshall is the Programmer and HE decides what gets done, when and how.

IMHO, I am pointing out a key point that is CORE to the game. I don't use the word CORE lightly.

You have the advantage of involvement with the development -- I only have reality of the results!

I had never set out to "pointed the finger" at the playtesters and I am not afraid of extending my sincerest appologies to them if they felt insulted, slighted or unloved! <hugs><wink>

I hope they, Marshall and you will appreciate the humor and understand that I have a deep passion for this game.

AresMars







Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125