Australian Design Group Comments on Options (Full Version)

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



Message

Mardonius -> Australian Design Group Comments on Options (11/15/2008 1:47:29 AM)

Hello Gents:

I am up to my old revolution tricks again. I was conversing with Harry Rowland of Australian Design Group (one of the original designers of EiA back in 1983) and ran by some options by him. I asked him which options he would be prefer to see in a EiA game, with the aim to getting these programmed into the Matrix Game PC version. His answer -- caveated that he had yet to see them playtested is as follows:

"of those mentioned I prefer 2-8, .... 14 & 16, athough I might be coaxed into some of the others."

So maybe when we get a lag in bug cracking, we can tackle some of these, with these "preferred" options as some of the first.

All the best,
Mardonius


1. Minor Country Improved Morale with training. Nations have the option of training minors to 0.5 below their own INF and CAV morale. So the French to 3.5 and the Spanish et alias to 2.5. Requires 24 months to effect. $3 of MP income per economic phase. 50% chance of success on initial try; repeat tries allowed every 12 months with continued expenditures. MP must stack a leader with a corps of each minor nation trained for duration of training. North African States may not be trained beyond 2 morale infantry and 3 cavalry.



2. Increased Corps Size. Allow nations to spend money and time to increase certain of their Corps. Must be in a step function to the next largest corps. Increased corps size may never exceed the size of the nation’s second largest infantry corps or the largest cavalry corps. Does not apply to special corps (Artillery, Guard, Feudal). Nation must spend $5 per economic phase for one year to achieve the increased corps size. Only one corps per nation could be increased in size at one time.



3. Increase number of corps a nation can produce. Allow MP and minor nations to spend money and time to increase the number of their Corps. New corps produced are the smallest of that nation’s type, or if that nation does not have that kind of corps (e.g. Prussian or most minor nations cavalry) they are the smallest in the game. Does not apply to special corps (Artillery, Guard, Feudal). Nation may spend $5 per economic phase for one year to gain the additional corps. Only one additional corps per nation can be produced at the same time. No nation may increase their number of corps by more than 50% of their starting number or by one additional corps, whichever is greater.



4. Increase number of depots with expenditures of time and money. Nations may spend $2 per economic phase for one year to gain an additional depot. Only one additional depot per nation can be produced at the same time. No nation may increase their depots by more than 50% of their starting strength.



5. Increase number of fleets with expenditures of time and money. Nations (MP and Minors) may spend $5 per economic phase for one year to gain an additional fleet. Only one additional fleet per nation can be produced at the same time. No nation may increase their fleets by more than 50% of their starting strength or one additional fleet, whichever is greater. Nations that start without fleet counters may not build one.



6. Allow North African Free States to build “Feudal” fleets. Fleets will be of reduced size (5) and have a minus -1 die roll modifier to all combats they are involved in. Count as ½ PP credit each for combat PP. Each NA nation can produce an equal number of fleets as they have corps. Can not provide invasion/coastal supply. NA states may not increase their number of fleets as in (5) above.



7. Improve fortifications with expenditure of time/money. Fortifications may be improved one step by spending $5 per economic phase for 24 months. No fortress may be improved more than one time. No fortress may be improved past 2 flechets (-2 to assault).



8. Improve harbor guns with expenditure of time/money. Harbor defense may be improved 10 guns by spending $2 per economic phase for 12 months. No harbor may be improved by more than 20 guns or beyond 110 guns.

9. Limit use of conquered North African Manpower to the Turks as no other power was able to use their manpower despite repeated occupations.



10. Increase guerrilla geographies to reflect historical realities ( Portugal , Naples , Sicily , Corsica, Sardinia, North Africa except Egypt ). Active for one year after state is conquered; three years for European countries in North Africa and three years for Turkey in Europe.



11. Allow a +1 PP for making a Free State Free



12. Allow minors to save monies up to $2.



13. Allow a December 1804 (in Grand Campaign) build phase wherein no extra monies can be saved.



14. Reduced naval construction costs. “Heavy Ships” (from Matrix version) can be built for $8. Light ships for $6. These numbers come from some research based around a ration over the $3 INF factor purchase. (I can provide reference links if requested.)


15. Variation on dominant power territories. One (and only one) of the territories required for achieving dominant status may be substituted for any two other territories so long as both of these territories are either contiguous or within two sea zones of a nation’s home nation territory. The combined Money and MP income of the two substitute territories must meet or exceed the combined income of the territory not conquered.



16. Dominant Power Achievement/Loss. A Nation need not be at peace with all enemy nations to achieve or lose dominant status. The nation must only hold or have lost the requisite territories for 6 months.




yammahoper -> RE: Australian Design Group Comments on Options (11/15/2008 8:55:35 PM)

1) Neat idea.

2-3) The armies in the game are well balanced against each other. Will GB with 3 extra corps and 30i factors really allow them to unvade the continent, or just give some extra corps to throw around the map at minors and bloat their $/MP rating? As things are now, if the nations allow the current Fr to FILL its army to max, then they are done. I feel this option will change the entire balance the game currently has, and not for the better.

4) Why? Do nations need the ability to project power on multiple fronts? As is, supply on defense is easy while invasion is difficult. Being invaded AND trying to invade stretches all nations very thin. The 7 depots works beautifully. No new depots are needed.

5-6) Are these new fleets using EiH rules? if so, what possible good are 5 factor fleets except to give Sp and Gb, even the Tu cheap and easy political points? They cannot carry corps, and (assuming they are light fleets) they cannot provide supply. If the original EiA rules are used, you will now have North African corps spread across the map as they are used to invade the Italys and points further north.

7-8) annoying bookkeeping in a board game, but for a computer game, why not?

9) This rule could work and place a limit on GB it may need. Other options might be to allow a nation MP from only one North African nation, though I prefer the rule as offered (only Turkey, other MP only gain $).

10) I like this one too.

11-13) Eh. I would like to see minors save and spend their money BEFORE they are attacked, then the computer building and deploying all available forces in corps and garrisons. As for saving $ after a MP owns it, Eh. I don't think it would hurt, but I cannot see how it would greatly improve anything.

14) EiA and the computer EiH have fairly balanced economies. Throwing a lot of extra cash into the hands of the brits is only going to give them more $ to bribe with. What is gained here? Will Sp and Fr suddenly be able to build big navies and try the brits? If so, will GB always be inevetiablly defeated after a certain point where they cannot out pace Ru, Fr and Sp naval builds?

15-16) What is wrong with the original "must be at peace with all MP" rule in original EiA? If dominant status is to be created and this rule altered, the XX Months seems a descent compromise, if one is desired (I do not).



DCWhitworth -> RE: Australian Design Group Comments on Options (11/15/2008 10:58:19 PM)

I can see a lot of value in some of these suggestions, however if you are going to start tinkering with the economic aspects as much as that I would suggest taking a step back and completely reworking the economic system.

e.g. Perhaps have it so that the mere fact a corps exists costs money (to maintain the underlying unit support structures so they are ready to go at a few months notice), it costs more to keep it in the field.

The idea that you can have troops on the board for free (in garrisons etc) might need to be addressed too.

Also since most of the ideas are money based there is the issue that the richest nations get more powerful.

Specific comments -

6. Is there any historical justification for this ? Isn't this overstating the likely effectiveness of such fleets ?

12. Why only $2 ? Why not allow then to carry any amount of money forwards ?

13. A neat idea in principle but another case of the rich getting richer. I'd rather give each nation a small amount of fixed reinforcements and a couple of available corps counters.

14. Definitely something that needs to be looked at. I've almost never seem anyone engage in serious ship building. EiANW has made it even worse if anything.

16. I like this. What was wrong with the original "must be at peace with all MP" rule was that I've seen games where (GB usually) will deliberately declare war on someone for the sole purpose of stopping them becoming dominant and then make no effort to pursue the war.

Since you are in suggestions mode I would propose that a rule is needed for additional leaders. What if you're playing with leader casualties and Napoleon gets killed early ? Should another leader appear ? Should an inferior leader be allowed to change his tactical maximum ?



Mardonius -> RE: Australian Design Group Comments on Options (11/16/2008 2:24:22 AM)

Thanks Gents.

I am going to take Harry's, Yamma's and David's comments and post them in the WAR ROOM undr House Rules/Options Clearing house. I'd love to get more input. No idea is -- at least at this stage [:)]-- a bad idea. I would be very thankful for everyone's ideas so that we can develop a market-based input for improving this game.



timewalker03 -> RE: Australian Design Group Comments on Options (11/16/2008 4:51:05 PM)

lol. Market based input? How will matrix respond to this. Of course though if you do push for this please make them optional and not part of the games main mechanics. Also it would be best to start with an original version of the EiA game for those who only want that along with the scenarios. Adding more changes or even pushing for them now I feel would undermine those of us who want a game as close as can be made to the original version of EiA. After that is completed, then swing away at anything else your mind can imagine.



Mardonius -> RE: Australian Design Group Comments on Options (11/16/2008 6:13:37 PM)

Sure TW... My intent is that all that are being discussed would/might be options...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6542969