RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (Full Version)

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



Message


Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/30/2008 6:12:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Apparently few actually want to win ...

Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/30/2008 8:15:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Apparently few actually want to win ...

Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.


I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/30/2008 9:28:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


Guy:

There will be no COALITION. Apparently few actually want to win and don't mind seeing you overrun the Germans time and time again, even your biggest nemesis (GB) sat by and watched you trounce the Au without giving any army support. I'm not sure Prussia's heart is still in the game and he does not look ready for war. I can't imagine an unconditional being too difficult to get from him (probably fairly easily actually since it doesn't look like he has totally rebuilt his army and it will, again, be him alone). I also am not sure that the Turks will last long enough for you to help him.


I can go after Prussia starting in Feb 1807. I don't expect him to last
much past March or April (even if he is refusing to surrender again; his
army should be dead by then & it doesn't take much to simply occupy
his capitols while moving the main army thru.)

I expect the Turks to easily be around until then. You cant even REACH him
(or him to YOU) during winter - remember the movement restrictions.

You guys may have time for 1 or 2 big battles (less if he simply backs up
into Turkey & makes you chase him) before I can get thru
Prussia; but thats about it - & thats not enough to knock out the Turks
when he starts with a full feudal army (it takes more than 2 battles to
eat thru all those troops)




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/30/2008 9:39:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Apparently few actually want to win ...

Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.


I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.


The first player to cross their goal is the big, 1st place winner. At that point;
everyone else takes their VP's & add in their manpower points. Anyone who
then crosses THEIR goal is also a winner (2nd, 3rd; etc - rank is determined by
the percentage that they exceed their goal). Conceivably EVERYBODY could
be a winner if its a close game. The reason for this is so that allies have
less reason to backstab one another.




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/31/2008 12:09:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Apparently few actually want to win ...

Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.


I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.


The first player to cross their goal is the big, 1st place winner. At that point;
everyone else takes their VP's & add in their manpower points. Anyone who
then crosses THEIR goal is also a winner (2nd, 3rd; etc - rank is determined by
the percentage that they exceed their goal). Conceivably EVERYBODY could
be a winner if its a close game. The reason for this is so that allies have
less reason to backstab one another.


This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Also, the same winter movement limitations apply to you. None of that matters since we all already knew who the winner is from the start of the game (when Pr DOWd Fr for no good reason and without ANY help at all, it was pretty much over at that point).




Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/31/2008 6:11:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.

The game can end when one player crosses the boundary to his goal, if he declares the game over.

Once the game IS declared over, then all of the other nations have their manpower totals added into their VP score. Usually, this will cause 1-4 other players to also be winners. Here's the original rule:

quote:

8.1.3.2.3 The Final Victory Points Step: During a Victory Points Step when the announced total victory points of a major power has matched or exceeded that major power's victory level or, if the final month that will be played has been concluded, during the final Victory Points Step of the game, manpower levels are counted for additional victory points.

8.1.3.2.3.1: Each major power counts its total currently controlled manpower values in controlled home nation provinces, controlled ceded provinces of other home nations and conquered minor countries (none of the component territories of the new political combinations used in options 11.1-11.6 count as conquered). Controlled minor free states and/or controlled provinces or minor countries with capitals currently occupied by an enemy are not counted.

8.1.3.2.3.2: These manpower values are added as extra victory points to the major power's victory point totals for determining a winner or winners.




Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/31/2008 6:16:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Are we supposed to reject the rules (of EiA, which you keep touting as superior) because you don't like them?

It seems to me that the game was intended to be played heartily by all, and that more than one should win as a reward for playing hard.




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (7/31/2008 6:22:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Are we supposed to reject the rules (of EiA, which you keep touting as superior) because you don't like them?

It seems to me that the game was intended to be played heartily by all, and that more than one should win as a reward for playing hard.


I'm not touting anything. IMO = In my OPINION. I'm saying that even if I "won" by these rules it would be a hollow victory.




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/2/2008 4:13:52 PM)

Ok; here is the latest from Jan 1807.

France DOWs Prussia.
Britain & Austria DOW Turkey.
(This is an attempt to knock Turkey out of the Russian war before France
can finish off Prussia & come after the Russian army that retreated home
from the Baltic.  They have until Feb 1808 to do so.  At that point
France can DOW Austria again.)




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/2/2008 4:18:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Are we supposed to reject the rules (of EiA, which you keep touting as superior) because you don't like them?

It seems to me that the game was intended to be played heartily by all, and that more than one should win as a reward for playing hard.


I'm not touting anything. IMO = In my OPINION. I'm saying that even if I "won" by these rules it would be a hollow victory.



Actually these rules go to the point that most victories in this game are PARTNERSHIP victories. I suspect that if
I win & TURKEY takes 2nd under these rules that he would not consider it a hollow victory; since he would deserve
some of the acclaim as well.




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/2/2008 9:00:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Are we supposed to reject the rules (of EiA, which you keep touting as superior) because you don't like them?

It seems to me that the game was intended to be played heartily by all, and that more than one should win as a reward for playing hard.


I'm not touting anything. IMO = In my OPINION. I'm saying that even if I "won" by these rules it would be a hollow victory.



Actually these rules go to the point that most victories in this game are PARTNERSHIP victories. I suspect that if
I win & TURKEY takes 2nd under these rules that he would not consider it a hollow victory; since he would deserve
some of the acclaim as well.


We can agree to disagree. With that attitude there is no reason to ever try to really win, just ride France's coattials (or some other MP) to 2nd place, then you are a winner. [8|]




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/2/2008 9:01:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Ok; here is the latest from Jan 1807.

France DOWs Prussia.
Britain & Austria DOW Turkey.
(This is an attempt to knock Turkey out of the Russian war before France
can finish off Prussia & come after the Russian army that retreated home
from the Baltic.  They have until Feb 1808 to do so.  At that point
France can DOW Austria again.)



I am no over concerned about France DOWing me (Russia). I think we are all worried about Pr at this point.




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/7/2008 6:45:18 AM)

Ok; here are the results from the France-Prussia battles for January 1807.

France makes unsucessful seige of Breaslau with 1 corp (no leader).

France makes successful seige of Berlin with 2 corp (no leader).
Casulties 1 French I, 3 Prussian I

[image]local://upfiles/27656/F2557ADF9C2348038A7A4B896BA3B751.jpg[/image]




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/7/2008 6:48:03 AM)

Napoleon & 4 corp attack 1 Prussian corp (no leader) in Kustrin

Casulties 1 Prussian I; no French losses

[image]local://upfiles/27656/26437BB652354A559703EAAC5B99929C.jpg[/image]




Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/7/2008 7:27:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
We can agree to disagree. With that attitude there is no reason to ever try to really win, just ride France's coattials (or some other MP) to 2nd place, then you are a winner. [8|]


That's correct. It's a little different than other wargames (that have only one winner). It teaches cooperation, plus it is highly historical (it was COALITIONs 6 and 7 that finally defeated Napoleon).

But, the biggest reason I like it is because then I don't have to play a game against six players for a year having only a 1 in 7 chance of victory.




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/8/2008 4:15:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
We can agree to disagree. With that attitude there is no reason to ever try to really win, just ride France's coattials (or some other MP) to 2nd place, then you are a winner. [8|]


That's correct. It's a little different than other wargames (that have only one winner). It teaches cooperation, plus it is highly historical (it was COALITIONs 6 and 7 that finally defeated Napoleon).

But, the biggest reason I like it is because then I don't have to play a game against six players for a year having only a 1 in 7 chance of victory.


I disagree that this is a good thing. The more and more I look and think about this "2nd place gets a trophy too victory nonsense" the more I think I will never play with this again.

Why? It totally throws the balance of the game off, extremely so. It makes Spain content with 2nd place and watching France win. It makes Turkey content with 2nd place and watching France win.

In a "balanced" game, Spain and Turkey would both want to see France fall down a few pegs, but with this "second place gets a trophy too victory" this just doesn't happen, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM. Why should they if they can win too? That's human nature.

No, this is not an option I will ever get in another game with, it's utterly off balancing to the natural flow of EiA. It's 1 more deviation from EiA and I think I've had enough from Matrix as it is.




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/8/2008 5:41:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
We can agree to disagree. With that attitude there is no reason to ever try to really win, just ride France's coattials (or some other MP) to 2nd place, then you are a winner. [8|]


That's correct. It's a little different than other wargames (that have only one winner). It teaches cooperation, plus it is highly historical (it was COALITIONs 6 and 7 that finally defeated Napoleon).

But, the biggest reason I like it is because then I don't have to play a game against six players for a year having only a 1 in 7 chance of victory.


I disagree that this is a good thing. The more and more I look and think about this "2nd place gets a trophy too victory nonsense" the more I think I will never play with this again.

Why? It totally throws the balance of the game off, extremely so. It makes Spain content with 2nd place and watching France win. It makes Turkey content with 2nd place and watching France win.

In a "balanced" game, Spain and Turkey would both want to see France fall down a few pegs, but with this "second place gets a trophy too victory" this just doesn't happen, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM. Why should they if they can win too? That's human nature.

No, this is not an option I will ever get in another game with, it's utterly off balancing to the natural flow of EiA. It's 1 more deviation from EiA and I think I've had enough from Matrix as it is.


This is NOT a house rule of any sort; it is not "1 more deviation from EiA". It is one of the STANDARD ORIGINAL EIA rules. It is not even an OPTIONAL EIA RULE. Failure to count mp as additional VPs to determine additional winnerS (plural) would be the deviation. (The only item that we included is a ranking for who would be considered 2nd vs 3rd vs etc amoung the multiple winners)

Here is the section from the original EIA rulebook.



8.1.3 HOW TO WIN A GAME: During the Victory Points Step of a game's final Turn, or possibly sooner, a victor is determined.

8.1.3.1 SCENARIO VICTORY: Each scenario has its own victory conditions (see the individual scenarios in 13.0) and the victory determination systems are different from those used for campaign games.

8.1.3.2 CAMPAIGN VICTORY: Victory points are collected during each Victory Points Step (see 8.1). In the campaign games, the first player(s) to obtain enough total victory points to reach or exceed his major power's victory level and announce this fact (it does not have to be announced at the first opportunity) is a winner. If two or more major powers have reached or exceeded their victory levels simultaneously, those major powers are cowinners. Players may not transfer victory points to each other. If no player reaches the required victory level by the end of a campaign game, Great Britain wins.

8.1.3.2.1 The Major Power Victory Levels: The required victory levels for each major power are given in the VICTORY LEVELS CHART on the Game Card.

8.1.3.2.2 Shorter Campaigns: If players wish to finish a campaign game earlier, they can determine the victor by calculating the major power which has attained the largest percentage of its victory level. Average these percentages for players controlling two major powers (see 14.2.2).

8.1.3.2.3 The Final Victory Points Step: During a Victory Points Step when the announced total victory points of a major power has matched or exceeded that major power's victory level or, if the final month that will be played has been concluded, during the final Victory Points Step of the game, manpower levels are counted for additional victory points.

8.1.3.2.3.1: Each major power counts its total currently controlled manpower values in controlled home nation provinces, controlled ceded provinces of other home nations and conquered minor countries (none of the component territories of the new political combinations used in options 11.1-11.6 count as conquered). Controlled minor free states and/or controlled provinces or minor countries with capitals currently occupied by an enemy are not counted.

8.1.3.2.3.2: These manpower values are added as extra victory points to the major power's victory point totals for determining a winner or winners.


8.1.3.2.3.3: For players controlling two major powers (see 14.2.2) to win, both of their major powers must match or exceed their victory level or the excess victory points of one of these major powers must be enough that, by adding these excess (not needed to match its own victory level) victory points to the other major power's victory points, that addition will be enough to bring that second major power to its victory level.






eske -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/8/2008 8:21:04 AM)

I like this rule too. Gives a much more reasonable finishing race. Avoiding desparate lastminute gangups, and allowing the first nation to announce his victory to bring his allies along to a joint victory.

And plz. note you have to announce your victory. It is not automatic when reaching your victory point level!

That is in EiA, of course.

/eske




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/8/2008 3:02:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
We can agree to disagree. With that attitude there is no reason to ever try to really win, just ride France's coattials (or some other MP) to 2nd place, then you are a winner. [8|]


That's correct. It's a little different than other wargames (that have only one winner). It teaches cooperation, plus it is highly historical (it was COALITIONs 6 and 7 that finally defeated Napoleon).

But, the biggest reason I like it is because then I don't have to play a game against six players for a year having only a 1 in 7 chance of victory.


I disagree that this is a good thing. The more and more I look and think about this "2nd place gets a trophy too victory nonsense" the more I think I will never play with this again.

Why? It totally throws the balance of the game off, extremely so. It makes Spain content with 2nd place and watching France win. It makes Turkey content with 2nd place and watching France win.

In a "balanced" game, Spain and Turkey would both want to see France fall down a few pegs, but with this "second place gets a trophy too victory" this just doesn't happen, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM. Why should they if they can win too? That's human nature.

No, this is not an option I will ever get in another game with, it's utterly off balancing to the natural flow of EiA. It's 1 more deviation from EiA and I think I've had enough from Matrix as it is.


This is NOT a house rule of any sort; it is not "1 more deviation from EiA". It is one of the STANDARD ORIGINAL EIA rules. It is not even an OPTIONAL EIA RULE. Failure to count mp as additional VPs to determine additional winnerS (plural) would be the deviation. (The only item that we included is a ranking for who would be considered 2nd vs 3rd vs etc amoung the multiple winners)

Here is the section from the original EIA rulebook.



8.1.3 HOW TO WIN A GAME: During the Victory Points Step of a game's final Turn, or possibly sooner, a victor is determined.

8.1.3.1 SCENARIO VICTORY: Each scenario has its own victory conditions (see the individual scenarios in 13.0) and the victory determination systems are different from those used for campaign games.

8.1.3.2 CAMPAIGN VICTORY: Victory points are collected during each Victory Points Step (see 8.1). In the campaign games, the first player(s) to obtain enough total victory points to reach or exceed his major power's victory level and announce this fact (it does not have to be announced at the first opportunity) is a winner. If two or more major powers have reached or exceeded their victory levels simultaneously, those major powers are cowinners. Players may not transfer victory points to each other. If no player reaches the required victory level by the end of a campaign game, Great Britain wins.

8.1.3.2.1 The Major Power Victory Levels: The required victory levels for each major power are given in the VICTORY LEVELS CHART on the Game Card.

8.1.3.2.2 Shorter Campaigns: If players wish to finish a campaign game earlier, they can determine the victor by calculating the major power which has attained the largest percentage of its victory level. Average these percentages for players controlling two major powers (see 14.2.2).

8.1.3.2.3 The Final Victory Points Step: During a Victory Points Step when the announced total victory points of a major power has matched or exceeded that major power's victory level or, if the final month that will be played has been concluded, during the final Victory Points Step of the game, manpower levels are counted for additional victory points.

8.1.3.2.3.1: Each major power counts its total currently controlled manpower values in controlled home nation provinces, controlled ceded provinces of other home nations and conquered minor countries (none of the component territories of the new political combinations used in options 11.1-11.6 count as conquered). Controlled minor free states and/or controlled provinces or minor countries with capitals currently occupied by an enemy are not counted.

8.1.3.2.3.2: These manpower values are added as extra victory points to the major power's victory point totals for determining a winner or winners.


8.1.3.2.3.3: For players controlling two major powers (see 14.2.2) to win, both of their major powers must match or exceed their victory level or the excess victory points of one of these major powers must be enough that, by adding these excess (not needed to match its own victory level) victory points to the other major power's victory points, that addition will be enough to bring that second major power to its victory level.





I am aware of that rule; however, I guess I must have misunderstood what you and Jimmer have been saying. I was under a different impression, I was understanding your implementation to be a variance of this rule, when in fact, your saying it's not. Ok, my apologies.






gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/8/2008 7:44:13 PM)

The only "variation" that we did was after determining the winners was to assign a "rank" (1st place,
2nd etc) if there were more than 1 winner under the standard rules (The EIA rules say "winners" - but
doesn't explicitly imply who gets "bragging rights" - ie. 1st place)




delatbabel -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/9/2008 2:38:19 AM)

I have a gameplay variation. Usually included whenever I play Austria or Britain.

Any Turkish or Spanish player who thinks that he can "win" the game by supporting France right throughout the game until the very end even though France is way ahead in terms of VPs, PPs, and territory, gets the tar beaten out of them. Sure, your gratefully received assistance may make sure that your French mate wins the game but if you're just playing the game to help someone else win I will do everything in my power to make sure you come last.




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/9/2008 3:54:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

I have a gameplay variation. Usually included whenever I play Austria or Britain.

Any Turkish or Spanish player who thinks that he can "win" the game by supporting France right throughout the game until the very end even though France is way ahead in terms of VPs, PPs, and territory, gets the tar beaten out of them. Sure, your gratefully received assistance may make sure that your French mate wins the game but if you're just playing the game to help someone else win I will do everything in my power to make sure you come last.


Fortunately, I believe that the Turkish player is getting ready to realize this and, although it won't be useful for this game, I'm hoping he will take something from this. GB, Au and Ru are all at war with Turkey at the moment.




Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/10/2008 7:39:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I disagree that this is a good thing. The more and more I look and think about this "2nd place gets a trophy too victory nonsense" the more I think I will never play with this again.

Why? It totally throws the balance of the game off, extremely so. It makes Spain content with 2nd place and watching France win. It makes Turkey content with 2nd place and watching France win.

In a "balanced" game, Spain and Turkey would both want to see France fall down a few pegs, but with this "second place gets a trophy too victory" this just doesn't happen, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM. Why should they if they can win too? That's human nature.

No, this is not an option I will ever get in another game with, it's utterly off balancing to the natural flow of EiA. It's 1 more deviation from EiA and I think I've had enough from Matrix as it is.

It's not an "option" at all. It's the rule, in the EiA board game anyhow, and there was no optional rule to change it. One could argue that going back to this original rule will change the balance of EiANW, but it will do so by getting it back closer to the original rules.




Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/10/2008 7:56:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Fortunately, I believe that the Turkish player is getting ready to realize this and, although it won't be useful for this game, I'm hoping he will take something from this. GB, Au and Ru are all at war with Turkey at the moment.

That's assuming he loses. I played Turkey in roughly this position and won. Nothing's a given with the Turks in this game. At any given moment one spectacular victory is possible, at which point the enemy's army no longer exists. One battle saw 78 factors of my enemies die. And, they had moved first (France and I were using combined movement at the time).

Of course, since I'm playing GB in THIS game, I'm really hoping that doesn't happen again. :)




NeverMan -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/10/2008 6:48:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I disagree that this is a good thing. The more and more I look and think about this "2nd place gets a trophy too victory nonsense" the more I think I will never play with this again.

Why? It totally throws the balance of the game off, extremely so. It makes Spain content with 2nd place and watching France win. It makes Turkey content with 2nd place and watching France win.

In a "balanced" game, Spain and Turkey would both want to see France fall down a few pegs, but with this "second place gets a trophy too victory" this just doesn't happen, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM. Why should they if they can win too? That's human nature.

No, this is not an option I will ever get in another game with, it's utterly off balancing to the natural flow of EiA. It's 1 more deviation from EiA and I think I've had enough from Matrix as it is.

It's not an "option" at all. It's the rule, in the EiA board game anyhow, and there was no optional rule to change it. One could argue that going back to this original rule will change the balance of EiANW, but it will do so by getting it back closer to the original rules.


I'm assuming you missed my above post where I apologized and thought you guys were implementing something different.




delatbabel -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/11/2008 8:01:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
That's assuming he loses.


Never underestimate the little guys.

Remember that approximately 130 years before the start of this game, France and Britain had an alliance.

And combined their forces and went to war against Holland.

And lost.




Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/12/2008 4:07:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I'm assuming you missed my above post where I apologized and thought you guys were implementing something different.


Not "missed". I replied in order, so I didn't see your response until AFTER I typed mine. Sorry.




Jimmer -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/12/2008 4:08:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
That's assuming he loses.


Never underestimate the little guys.

Remember that approximately 130 years before the start of this game, France and Britain had an alliance.

And combined their forces and went to war against Holland.

And lost.


Oh, yeah. I was party to the game where 3 Prussian cavalry killed 4 French cavalry in an army of some huge number of guys. ANYTHING can happen. Some things are a bit more probable, though. :)




gwheelock -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/12/2008 4:54:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
That's assuming he loses.


Never underestimate the little guys.

Remember that approximately 130 years before the start of this game, France and Britain had an alliance.

And combined their forces and went to war against Holland.

And lost.


Oh, yeah. I was party to the game where 3 Prussian cavalry killed 4 French cavalry in an army of some huge number of guys. ANYTHING can happen. Some things are a bit more probable, though. :)


Especially when the "little guy" has someone who will come & help him.
I belive in honoring my alliances & helping my allies.




fatfloyd -> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR (8/13/2008 3:55:00 PM)

Turkey here.

I am not sure what you expect Turkey to do in the game. I am trying to win and the best way for that at the moment is be allied with France. It gave me money and a chance to fight Russia while his main army and best leaders were far away. I was fortunate with chit selection so I have done well with the PPs.

I do not see this as being a French lackey. I am not trying for second place at Napoleon's feet. Am I supposed to get the Ottoman Empire and then go on auto-pilot for the rest of the game, this may be the best way for the Turks to finish with a decent score but how boring is that. I may well be crushed by Austria and Britain but who knows. Either way I will enjoy the action.




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375