1702, 1740 Variants (Full Version)

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



Message


Tarleton -> 1702, 1740 Variants (1/20/2009 3:10:30 AM)

For General Discussion....

Firstly, did anyone out there play the War of Spanish Succession or Frederick the Great variants? I PBEMed the Frederick version back in the day (before the PC game...PBEMing the AH version) and found it very balanced and a lot of fun. Any other reviews of these old saws?

Secondly, I wonder how many out there would like to see any of these variants, as well as the 1792 variant in the PC game?

Thanks,

Pat




delatbabel -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/20/2009 8:03:01 AM)

The 1792 variant is very good, I would like to see it in the PC game. As I would like to see a grand 1792 - 1815 campaign.




iamspamus -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/20/2009 12:50:31 PM)

I would like to see the 1792 - 1804 scenario as well as the 1792-1815 campaign.

One of the 1702 scenarios was weird. It didn't run by month, rather by quarter partly because it went 20 years, so almost double the time of the 1805-1815 scenario. I was working on one for this time period. I "solved" the time issue by playing it only on odd years... so 1701,1703,1705, etc. Therefor you still got the whole timeperiod, and used the "normal" time of 12 months a year. I never finished it AND horrors abound, it was based on EiH...[:D]

I think that the 1812 scenario is coming up soon. That'll be good, I suspect. Not sure about the Prussian time period (or even the 1702+) time period, because of the lack of corps structure. In mine, I just had smaller stacking limits. An attempt to limit "monster stacks".

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

The 1792 variant is very good, I would like to see it in the PC game. As I would like to see a grand 1792 - 1815 campaign.





Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/20/2009 1:53:01 PM)

With the editor, you should be free to build whatever you want.
The limiting factors will be the maps and area database. You cannot add nations in the database nor change starting boundaries BUT you could change the status of minors / major provinces.




NeverMan -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/20/2009 2:45:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

With the editor, you should be free to build whatever you want.
The limiting factors will be the maps and area database. You cannot add nations in the database nor change starting boundaries BUT you could change the status of minors / major provinces.



So is it still going to be possible to build classic EiA? How can one do this without the ability to change the map or starting boundaries?




Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/20/2009 3:32:16 PM)

We would be doing a full new map and area DB. This would also be available in the editor so when you started a new scenario in the editor you could choose the map (EiANW or EiA Classic).




Tarleton -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/20/2009 8:33:14 PM)

Below is a link to the rules for the 1740-1748 Scenario (Austrian Succession). There was also a 1756-1763 Seven years War scenario. As I said, the EiA basics worked extremely well in the 1740 scenario. Notice the leader limits are smaller and the corps sizes are smaller.

http://members.fortunecity.com/lobodeoro080888/1740/1740_scen.html




iamspamus -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/21/2009 11:03:55 AM)

WHAT!?! Matrix is listening to people and changing things as requested...? How can this be? I was told the opposite...repeatedly...over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...[:D]

Poke the bear...[8D]

Good to hear ME. Continued thanks for the hard work.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We would be doing a full new map and area DB. This would also be available in the editor so when you started a new scenario in the editor you could choose the map (EiANW or EiA Classic).






Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/21/2009 12:43:49 PM)

Thanks Jason LOL!





Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/21/2009 12:44:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarleton

Below is a link to the rules for the 1740-1748 Scenario (Austrian Succession). There was also a 1756-1763 Seven years War scenario. As I said, the EiA basics worked extremely well in the 1740 scenario. Notice the leader limits are smaller and the corps sizes are smaller.

http://members.fortunecity.com/lobodeoro080888/1740/1740_scen.html


Real quick...
Did this use the classic map?




NeverMan -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/21/2009 4:45:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

WHAT!?! Matrix is listening to people and changing things as requested...? How can this be? I was told the opposite...repeatedly...over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...[:D]

Poke the bear...[8D]

Good to hear ME. Continued thanks for the hard work.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We would be doing a full new map and area DB. This would also be available in the editor so when you started a new scenario in the editor you could choose the map (EiANW or EiA Classic).





Yeah, it's just too bad that you can't edit the map or any of it's locations or any of it's borders or any of it's capitals or any of it's anything!




Tarleton -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/21/2009 8:54:36 PM)

Marshall,

Yes, it used the original map.

Departing from neverman's admirable stance that I differ from, I think the work you designers have done splitting a few of the minors into smaller states actually enhances the potential for utilizing the editor to create various "home brew" pre-Napoleonic scenarios that were quite playable and very enjoyable.

I agree with your comments in another thread regarding the viability of utilizing the EiA "System" in the ACW. Eia is a game of Diplomacy with an abstracted combat system.

The system breaks down post 1815 as europe moves toward an age of industrialism where nationalism (ironically released by the French revolution) drives "winner take all" conflicts in Europe. National boundaries are more fixed. The case can be made theat post 1866, all conflicts would be Total Wars and not Limited wars.

Interestingly, EiA's approach to alliances and conflict (PP's as a currency, alliances and conflicts shifting, all wars limited in nature) are already beginning to end by 1805. Hence the French Large Corps system (fed by conscription...a signpost to a future age) and increased movement rates.

The religious wars (ideological wars..another "total war" era) are beginning to subside by the time of the Restoration in Great Britain in the 1660s and European politics enters a phase of Limited Conflict in the 1690s which continues until the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The phase, which includes the War of the Spanish Succession and the Great Northern War, the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, and ends with the Naploeonic Wars, is perfectly suited to the EiA tratment.

I disagree with iamspamus regarding the Corps system. Armies moved in groups, just smaller ones, and they were not called Corps, per se, but the system works just fine. Take Frederick for example in the 1740 scenario:

Frederick the Great is a 354A.
The PR INF Corps have Strength maximums of 9I/M, 3C. Assuming 1,000 men per strength point, Frederick marches into battle with 48,000 men (about what he had with a full army). But coordination of the Army when "seperated" (outflanking) is difficult, so he has a 3 Strategic Rating.

In fact no leader of any nationality has a Corps maximum higher than a 4, and Frederick has the highest Strategic rating of them all with a 3. So Schwerin, for instance, would go into combat with 2 Corps, or 24,000 men.

The editor would need an option to allow chit combat with forces of 2 Corps or less.

Pat




Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/22/2009 1:03:29 PM)

I appreciate the info, Tarleton!




Marshall Ellis -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/22/2009 1:05:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

WHAT!?! Matrix is listening to people and changing things as requested...? How can this be? I was told the opposite...repeatedly...over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...[:D]

Poke the bear...[8D]

Good to hear ME. Continued thanks for the hard work.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We would be doing a full new map and area DB. This would also be available in the editor so when you started a new scenario in the editor you could choose the map (EiANW or EiA Classic).





Yeah, it's just too bad that you can't edit the map or any of it's locations or any of it's borders or any of it's capitals or any of it's anything!



LOL!
Wow!
Don't forget to take your meds today, Neverman!






NeverMan -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/22/2009 1:08:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


LOL!
Wow!
Don't forget to take your meds today, Neverman!





I won't, they're injected on an hourly basis automatically so no worries there!




iamspamus -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/22/2009 6:56:43 PM)

I am not sure to be honest. I would suppose that it did, but slightly modified. It came out before there were the high-tech graphics programs available to everyone to change the map.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarleton

Below is a link to the rules for the 1740-1748 Scenario (Austrian Succession). There was also a 1756-1763 Seven years War scenario. As I said, the EiA basics worked extremely well in the 1740 scenario. Notice the leader limits are smaller and the corps sizes are smaller.

http://members.fortunecity.com/lobodeoro080888/1740/1740_scen.html


Real quick...
Did this use the classic map?






iamspamus -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/22/2009 6:58:16 PM)

Neverman, you should get an IV drip...They're GREAT!!!
Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


LOL!
Wow!
Don't forget to take your meds today, Neverman!





I won't, they're injected on an hourly basis automatically so no worries there!






iamspamus -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/23/2009 8:32:28 AM)

Tarleton, good stuff! I like (civil) disagreement. It expands the mind.

I liked most of your post and agree with it.

I disagree on the corps issue. Most armies pre-Nap moved in groups, I concur. That is a better word than armies, though there was usually only one or two armies per country. However, a group is not a corps. Corps were specifically designed to be smaller units that were able to operate independently along simultaneous roads in a relatively sophisticated road network. They were made to be "little armies" which could hold out until the rest of the localized corps could show up to help them. Often these guys would show up in the rear or flanks of the opponent.

The French could do this style of fighting on the German plain and N Italy easily, but became more difficult the farther East, ie. away from civilization [;)] you went. It broke down completely in Russia and E Prussia for instance. This was due to the poor road network and poor supply, necessitating more bulky supply lines.

This was NOT the way of fighting pre-Nap. You may have groups or whatever terms you want to use, but they were not trained to cooperate and followed a strict supply line.

So, you can state that the system works earlier and I said that it does, but it's not an exact representation of the armies of the time. Just because there are groups (actually one cited group) that consists of the same number of units doesn't mean that the system models the time. It works fine, but works best for Nap period. As you stated before, it doesn't really work for post Nap/railroad times.

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarleton

Marshall,

Yes, it used the original map.

Departing from neverman's admirable stance that I differ from, I think the work you designers have done splitting a few of the minors into smaller states actually enhances the potential for utilizing the editor to create various "home brew" pre-Napoleonic scenarios that were quite playable and very enjoyable.

I agree with your comments in another thread regarding the viability of utilizing the EiA "System" in the ACW. Eia is a game of Diplomacy with an abstracted combat system.

The system breaks down post 1815 as europe moves toward an age of industrialism where nationalism (ironically released by the French revolution) drives "winner take all" conflicts in Europe. National boundaries are more fixed. The case can be made theat post 1866, all conflicts would be Total Wars and not Limited wars.

Interestingly, EiA's approach to alliances and conflict (PP's as a currency, alliances and conflicts shifting, all wars limited in nature) are already beginning to end by 1805. Hence the French Large Corps system (fed by conscription...a signpost to a future age) and increased movement rates.

The religious wars (ideological wars..another "total war" era) are beginning to subside by the time of the Restoration in Great Britain in the 1660s and European politics enters a phase of Limited Conflict in the 1690s which continues until the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The phase, which includes the War of the Spanish Succession and the Great Northern War, the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, and ends with the Naploeonic Wars, is perfectly suited to the EiA tratment.

I disagree with iamspamus regarding the Corps system. Armies moved in groups, just smaller ones, and they were not called Corps, per se, but the system works just fine. Take Frederick for example in the 1740 scenario:

Frederick the Great is a 354A.
The PR INF Corps have Strength maximums of 9I/M, 3C. Assuming 1,000 men per strength point, Frederick marches into battle with 48,000 men (about what he had with a full army). But coordination of the Army when "seperated" (outflanking) is difficult, so he has a 3 Strategic Rating.

In fact no leader of any nationality has a Corps maximum higher than a 4, and Frederick has the highest Strategic rating of them all with a 3. So Schwerin, for instance, would go into combat with 2 Corps, or 24,000 men.

The editor would need an option to allow chit combat with forces of 2 Corps or less.

Pat





Tarleton -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/23/2009 9:42:55 AM)

Iamspamus,

I think we essentially agree here. I think what we are talking about is the word "Corps".

I agree that there were no "Corps" pre-1805. But as the combat system is an abstraction, utilizing the Corps in the game system as division sub-groupings in say, the 1740 scenario, doesn't bother me, realizing that the word "corps" will not be purged by the editor, likely. :) It's an abstraction. Reducing the sizes from 1805, movement rates, compositions, and leader strategic ratings and strategic maximums takes care of any inconsistancies. If I recall, there were extra foraging penalties as well, an extra +1 normally and an extra +1 or +2 for forced marching in the 1702 and 1740 variants. Or Something of the sort.

My contention is that the EiA system of abstracting military comabt in Europe works just fine from roughly 1690-1805 (the Wars of Marlborough/Louis XIV through to the end of the Napoleonic era).

We should really begin to have seprate threads; An Age of Marlborough and a Frederick's Wars forum do bang out the particulars for each era. I'll see if I can find the rules for the 1702-20 scenarios.

Pat





iamspamus -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/23/2009 9:49:06 AM)

I have a soft copy of some redesigned 1702 scenario info I was working on.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarleton

Iamspamus,

I think we essentially agree here. I think what we are talking about is the word "Corps".

I agree that there were no "Corps" pre-1805. But as the combat system is an abstraction, utilizing the Corps in the game system as division sub-groupings in say, the 1740 scenario, doesn't bother me, realizing that the word "corps" will not be purged by the editor, likely. :) It's an abstraction. Reducing the sizes from 1805, movement rates, compositions, and leader strategic ratings and strategic maximums takes care of any inconsistancies. If I recall, there were extra foraging penalties as well, an extra +1 normally and an extra +1 or +2 for forced marching in the 1702 and 1740 variants. Or Something of the sort.

My contention is that the EiA system of abstracting military comabt in Europe works just fine from roughly 1690-1805 (the Wars of Marlborough/Louis XIV through to the end of the Napoleonic era).

We should really begin to have seprate threads; An Age of Marlborough and a Frederick's Wars forum do bang out the particulars for each era. I'll see if I can find the rules for the 1702-20 scenarios.

Pat







Tarleton -> RE: 1702, 1740 Variants (1/23/2009 10:01:57 AM)

I saw them posted online as well, last week.

I guess we'll start with Frederick. I'll begin a thread later today. I think the best bet is posting the various changes required based of the variant and then seeing iof the required change(s) can be accomplished in the new editor in a line by line fashion. Perhaps Marshall could give us a thumbs up or down on those.

Pat




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.233887