MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (Full Version)

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



Message

grimmerling -> MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/22/2008 2:49:41 PM)

France has been able to leave 1 inf of garrison in Berlin. So i began besieging them. Last month France took last move attacking my stack in Berlin with one corps and loosing.
So now, during Diplomacy, the French garrison is still alive in Berlin, and my two Prussian corps are in the Berlin area. When I try to end Diplomacy the computer tells me "Berlin has fallen to France. You must sue France for peace!"
Is this some kind of bug? Or are you serious about it?



bresh -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/22/2008 2:56:52 PM)

Think you need to share more information.
What month etc ? 
Where are you in stability zone, or whats its called, if you in fiasco you could be forced to accept surrender. Not sure.

Regards
Bresh



Marshall Ellis -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/22/2008 3:16:21 PM)

I think what happened here is that France (By attacking your stack) lifted the siege. of Berlin. Although your units are in the area, they are not besieging Berlin anymore thus forcing you to surrender.

How long had the French garrison been in Berlin?



Soapy Frog -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/22/2008 6:59:50 PM)

It's not relevant is it?

There is no requirement to sue for peace just because Berlin is occupied. Is there? Tell me there isn't, Marshall.



gwheelock -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/22/2008 7:05:10 PM)

Yes; this is rather important.

I know that the AI surrenders if its capitol falls (and players SHOULD SERIOUSLY consider it);
but is it an actual REQUIREMENT for PLAYERS?

The original EIA had a surrender requirement if the MP could "collect no HOME NATION manpower
(this was an optional alternative to complete extermination); but that is much MUCH harder than
just taking 1 city (even one as far away as Moscow)



yammahoper -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/22/2008 8:31:10 PM)

From what I have seen, you are required to sue for peace if your capital is occupied and unbesieged.  This has happened to me several times.  Each time I Sued but refused to accept an unconditional, and two out of three times the war continued, but once (as Pr), Fr offered a conditional and I lost the war.

On another occassion, after clicking I would accept an unconditional, Fr and Tu gave me a conditional, Tu an unconditional.

Lesson; protect your capital.

yamma



Soapy Frog -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/22/2008 8:37:32 PM)

... This is not in the game manual, and it is against the rules of EiA, and EiH.

It's also a massive blow to game balance. I don't think (or at least I hope not) it's even necessary to explain why.

Marshall please can we have the proper rules put in place?



Jimmer -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 3:02:19 AM)

This would be a HUGE game-unbalancing rule, if it's really true. Prussia and Austria can get very easily hogtied by it. Several times Vienna or Berlin has fallen, only to see other allies take the French down (sometimes that same turn -- I wonder how the computer would handle THAT?)

On the other hand, Russia. Spain, and Great Britain have very little to fear.



Soapy Frog -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 7:25:48 AM)

Well Spain is screwed too. It;s not THAT hard to take Madrid. And how can you fight a successful guerilla campaign if you are absolutely tied to defenidng Madrid?



zaquex -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 9:19:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I think what happened here is that France (By attacking your stack) lifted the siege. of Berlin. Although your units are in the area, they are not besieging Berlin anymore thus forcing you to surrender.

How long had the French garrison been in Berlin?


That an attacking force can cancel the siege by just attacking is wrong, especially if it can be done by a single 1 factor militia corp. EiA rules says about limited field combat cause thats in my oppinion what it is whether or not any forces from the beseiged force is used:

quote:

"7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.

7.5.4.2.3.1.1: The surviving siege defenders return to the besieged city and the entire relieving force returns to the area from which it entered the siege area (returns to any one of the areas from which it entered, if more than one). If all siege defenders were eliminated, the city is captured.

7.5.4.2.3.1.2: There is no pursuit if the relieving force did not break, and, if it did break, only the relieving force may be pursued, not the siege defenders."


I also agree with all that says that the rule of forced surrender due to enemy occupation of your capital is wrong and inconsistent with EiA. You should lose your ability to collect tax and you should lose PP for having your capital occupied but you should not be required to surrender.

We also played with the rule that if you ever failed a economic loss roll in Fiasco Zone you where forced to sue for peace and forced to accept a conditional peace if offered. This as a variant of 10.5.1

quote:

"...If a major power would have been forced off the lower end of the display, then that major power must sue for peace during the next Peace Step with every major power at war with it (only a conditional surrender has to be accepted)"


We felt this was a reasonable rule to force new players to concider a conditional peace before they ruined any chance to come back later in the game.

Regards

zaq







Murat -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 6:15:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex
That an attacking force can cancel the siege by just attacking is wrong, especially if it can be done by a single 1 factor militia corp. EiA rules says about limited field combat cause thats in my oppinion what it is whether or not any forces from the beseiged force is used:

quote:

"7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.

7.5.4.2.3.1.1: The surviving siege defenders return to the besieged city and the entire relieving force returns to the area from which it entered the siege area (returns to any one of the areas from which it entered, if more than one). If all siege defenders were eliminated, the city is captured.

7.5.4.2.3.1.2: There is no pursuit if the relieving force did not break, and, if it did break, only the relieving force may be pursued, not the siege defenders."


I also agree with all that says that the rule of forced surrender due to enemy occupation of your capital is wrong and inconsistent with EiA. You should lose your ability to collect tax and you should lose PP for having your capital occupied but you should not be required to surrender.


attacking forces breaking the seiges is an original rule from EIA and EIH, forced surrender from capital occupation is not. I did get into a debate before release about the benefit of enforcing the Civil Disorder rule but many people were against that so maybe this was a compromise that just did not make it into the manual. It definitely channges strategies.



Jimmer -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 6:21:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

... It;s not THAT hard to take Madrid. And how can you fight a successful guerilla campaign if you are absolutely tied to defenidng Madrid?

Have you ever actually TRIED to conquer Spain's capital? It's a lot harder than it looks. GB cannot even make the attempt, because she does not have enough depots and/or corps counters (you have to leave one in every square that is sufficient to kill any guerillas that appear). Also, the guerillas cannot be engaged. They cut supply without giving the enemy a chance to deal with them.

It's MIGHTY ugly. Only France can effectively pull it off, in my opinion, and then only because he has a supply source right next door to the border.

Anyhow, you are exactly correct in your other point: Spain's guerilla campaign is MUCH more effective if the enemy has to occupy all of Spain's provincial capitals. It cannot be done by ANY enemy, including France, without allies. There simply are too many spaces to cover.

So, in the board game, nations had to think long and hard over whether to go to war with Spain. GB could afford it, because she didn't care about conquest. Only the sinking of the navies matters to her. But, any other nation is hard-pressed when thinking about engaging Spain.

Of course, the situation is somewhat analogous in reverse, since Spain really can't do much damage to anybody else, either.

Which is one reason Spain tends to stay out of major-vs.-major wars.

Still, I agree that Spain should have been in my list.



Grimrod42 -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 6:58:09 PM)

I assume we are talking about PBEM
becuase agaisnt the AI with SPain last weekend I conquered all of Italy, France and large chunks of Germany.
[;)]





AresMars -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 7:40:43 PM)

IMHO, this breaks the game as wars will now become a DRIVE FOR THE CAPITAL for the quick war victory....

Prussia, Austria, and France are going to be very hard pressed due to the availability of Minor Country supply sources near their capitals.

Spain will become an easier PP/land horse for France and England as there are only 4 areas between Bayonne and Madrid (for the French) and 3 areas between Almedia (Portugal) and Madrid (for the Brits)

Turkey will still be concered by Austria (4 Areas) or Naval invasion by Russia, Spain or England through Salencia

Ony Russia will be laughing.... (ADDED: Assuming you need to Occupy Moscow and St. Pete) or (Just Moscow)

talk about your shift in power...

ADDED: Comment about Russia and corrected spelling errors



Grimrod42 -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 7:51:32 PM)

Russia is not safe either St.Petersburg is not hard to get to..,

As far as I remember this is(forced surrender) not in the manual...



dude -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 9:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

... It;s not THAT hard to take Madrid. And how can you fight a successful guerilla campaign if you are absolutely tied to defenidng Madrid?

Have you ever actually TRIED to conquer Spain's capital? It's a lot harder than it looks. GB cannot even make the attempt, because she does not have enough depots and/or corps counters (you have to leave one in every square that is sufficient to kill any guerillas that appear). Also, the guerillas cannot be engaged. They cut supply without giving the enemy a chance to deal with them.

...


I play GB all the time and never have a problem taking Madrid... You just have to do it the right way... Get a few minor free states and use those extra corps for screening and defending your depots... I march from Gibraltar all the time and take Madrid.. or if I've got Portugal I march from there... it's even easier. I've always thought it was foolish for the Spanish to go to war with either France or GB. I've even had two different spanish players quit after only one year because they were sore that Madrid fell and I had wiped out their forces (of course they wouldn't take a surrender and instisted in both cases on fighting to the last man...)

Dude



Soapy Frog -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 9:25:08 PM)

Yeah i do not think Madrid is very hard to take; and of course France is the MAIN threat anyway, the one you would actually WANT to fight a guerilla war against. If Britain attacks, you might actually see a FRIENDLY French army marching to your defence!

All semantic however. Forced surrender needs to be implemented properly, i.e. no home nation manpower collection in the economic phase. Heck I'd be happy if Marshall just would acknowedge the problem... so far no one of authority has said anything concrete.



zaquex -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 10:00:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat


attacking forces breaking the seiges is an original rule from EIA and EIH...


Can you please point me to that rule, I dont seem to be able to find one that supports that just attacking a siege is enough to break a siege.



AresMars -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 10:06:47 PM)


The following may help from the orginial EiA - Not an Optional rule I believe, but here it is; (I have no EiH reference ATM)


7.5.4.2.3 Relieving Force-Limited Field Combats: If the besieged force attacks with the help of "relieving forces" (ie., external corps that enter the area from another area) or such relieving forces attack without assistance from any part (all besieged factors do not have to be used) of the besieged force, a "limited" field combat instead of a defender attack combat is fought. Limited field combats are fought at the same time as field and trivial combats (ie., before any siege assault or defender attack combats). A limited field combat is a normal field combat (use all normal field combat rules) that may not exceed one "day" (three combat rounds) in length and uses the following special rules:

7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.

7.5.4.2.3.1.1: The surviving siege defenders return to the besieged city and the entire relieving force returns to the area from which it entered the siege area (returns to any one of the areas from which it entered, if more than one). If all siege defenders were eliminated, the city is captured.

7.5.4.2.3.1.2: There is no pursuit if the relieving force did not break, and, if it did break, only the relieving force may be pursued, not the siege defenders.

7.5.4.2.3.2 Relieving Force Wins: If the besiegers break, they retreat in accordance with the normal retreat after combat rules (see 7.5.2.10.3), but may only be pursued by cavalry that is in the relieving force (not in the siege defender's force) and any previously besieged corps may, if desired, then be immediately moved out of the city into the surrounding area.

7.5.4.2.3.3 Political Points For Limited Field Combats: Political points for winning and losing are assigned as for field combats (see 7.5.2.10.1.3). To win or lose, one side must be broken or eliminated, otherwise the combat is considered a draw.

Source: http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/downloads/eiarules.zip



Soapy Frog -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 10:34:33 PM)

You cant find the rule Zaquex becuase it doesn't exist. AresMars quotes the correct rules section.

Simply attacking (and failing to beat) a besieging force absolutely does NOT lift the siege.

This should be fixed as well.



Tater -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 10:56:44 PM)


quote:

...Have you ever actually TRIED to conquer Spain's capital?


No, but then nobody ever does because the Spaniard will normally surrender if it looks like it is going that far. Spain seldom has a reason to hold out if they can get a conditional...and the cost of forcing Spain to an unconditional is almost never worth it. So, from a strictly practical point of view, there is seldom any reason/opportunity to occupy Madrid.

OTOH, with this rule, concerns about supply lines are not that huge since winning the battle at the capital and occupying the city is all that matters. So you loose a couple of militia to foraging...so what, your opponent is going to be surrendering unconditionally shortly so it really doesn't matter.



zaquex -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 11:00:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

You cant find the rule Zaquex becuase it doesn't exist. AresMars quotes the correct rules section.



What I thought

quote:

7.5.4.2.3 Relieving Force-Limited Field Combats: If the besieged force attacks with the help of "relieving forces" (ie., external corps that enter the area from another area) or such relieving forces attack without assistance from any part (all besieged factors do not have to be used) of the besieged force, a "limited" field combat instead of a defender attack combat is fought....

7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.


Looks pretty clear for EiA standards




Murat -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 11:37:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex
the siege is resumed.


RESUMED (From Webster's)
"to return to or begin again after interruption"

Pretty clear indeed.

You can combine that with the requirement to have an uninterrupted seige.



ndrose -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/23/2008 11:58:42 PM)

It seems to me this is a deviation (whether intentional or not) from the boardgame, but it cuts two ways. In EiANW, when a relieving corps moves into the area, the besiegers are pulled off the walls and into the rural area, breaking the siege whether the relievers win or not; that's obviously an advantage for the defenders. On the other hand, it means that the garrison can't participate in the combat (at least I don't see any way for them to do so), which is an advantage (though a slight one, if the garrison's small) for the besiegers.

Nathan Rose



zaquex -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/24/2008 1:13:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex
the siege is resumed.


RESUMED (From Webster's)
"to return to or begin again after interruption"

Pretty clear indeed.

You can combine that with the requirement to have an uninterrupted seige.



Thank you for the definition, although it didnt seem to be any confusion of what resumed means.

Although I am confused with what you mean. What requirements are you referring to and what relevance does it have to support the current implementation of EiANW?



Murat -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/24/2008 1:36:46 AM)

Well, it seems some confusion did exist since several people indicate that an attack by a corps that loses does not interrupt the seige, which it does, and always has. As for the uninterrupted language:

10.7 Conquest of Minor Countries
Conquests of minor countries are checked for after all major power sequences are completed. Control flags are changed to show the conquest of minor countries and their change of control. The control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied during the previous month and the conqueror has maintained uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation for the entire current month. A newly conquered minor country is always marked with a conquered control flag.



zaquex -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/24/2008 2:10:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Well, it seems some confusion did exist since several people indicate that an attack by a corps that loses does not interrupt the seige, which it does, and always has. As for the uninterrupted language:


The semantics is irrelevant, the problem is that the implementation doesn't resume the siege as per 7.5.4.2.3.1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
10.7 Conquest of Minor Countries
Conquests of minor countries are checked for after all major power sequences are completed. Control flags are changed to show the conquest of minor countries and their change of control. The control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied during the previous month and the conqueror has maintained uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation for the entire current month. A newly conquered minor country is always marked with a conquered control flag.


Which says that even if the releiving forces won the battle, the prerequisite for conquest has not been met for the past month.

It does not really have relevance for issue that the siege should be resumed, even though it highlights that EiANW currently deviate conciderable from EiA.



Soapy Frog -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/24/2008 2:18:50 AM)

Murat, the rule you are quoting is minor country control which is not relevant anyway since it's talking about uninterrupted OCCUPATION, to conquer a MINOR. No one disputes that rule.

Not sure why you are trying to derail this thread Murat but this is actually two important issues at stake in this thread:

1) There should absolutely not be a forced surrender requirement when your capital is occupied
2) Besieging units which have been involved in a field battle but not lost should return to sieging when the battle is complete



Marshall Ellis -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/24/2008 2:35:00 AM)

1. We kept Civil Disorder out of the game. It was only coded with Civil Disorder Restrictions in place thus forcing the player to sue for peace in the diplomacy step and not allowing the elimination of the MP. Maybe we could add this as an option later on?



zaquex -> RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! (1/24/2008 2:47:38 AM)

Hey Marshall could you please comment on:

quote:

1) There should absolutely not be a forced surrender requirement when your capital is occupied
2) Besieging units which have been involved in a field battle but not lost should return to sieging when the battle is complete


Its two absolutly game changing things that are fundamental for EiA. The current implementation is open for all sorts of abuse and exploitation that cant have been intended by the developers. On top of that it also creates balance issues. Can you give your thoughts and intentions regarding this. Please. 


Regards

zaq



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375