One Concern

One Concern (Full Version)

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

Message

Chiteng -> One Concern (4/13/2003 11:36:12 AM)
Although the British WERE noted for their ability to train native levy.... In almost every game of EIA that I have played, the Brits manage to grab so much of North Afrika that their manpower per quarter rivals Russia itself. In fact they dont even need to fight for it. They buy it outright from the Turks for outrageous sums that the Turks would be insane to refuse. Like 30$ for Tunisia. I am curious how this will be handled in the computer game.

Ancient One -> (4/13/2003 2:12:42 PM)
I've never played EIA, but that sounds outrageous if true. Even if we assume that foreign manpower should be fully available to Britain (which we shouldn't), North Africa was almost empty in the early 1800s.

Soola -> (4/14/2003 3:59:01 PM)
Hi. In the boardgame I have seen 2 different house-rules for this. 1. Either you halve all manpower from North-Africa when conquered, or 2. Manpower from North Africa can only be used to purchase Militia when conquered. Both rules have curbed the British expansion into North Africa, since it's not worth it anymore. Hopefully they'll be availible as optional settings in the computer game. Sulla

Le Tondu -> (4/14/2003 9:02:52 PM)
That is a wonderful idea Sulla. Thanks. No set of rules is ever perfect and attempts to circumvent them are always a danger when you wargame with players who have an extreme desire to just "win" the game -at any cost. These players don't care about history or the ethics of taking advantage of mistakes or omissions made by the rule set writers.

Chiteng -> (4/14/2003 10:41:38 PM)
Well frankly I was a 'play the game the way the rules are written' Kinda EIA player. Until I met a Brit who did what I describe. I was playing Spain. We were defacto allies(france insisted on invading me) But France foolishly didnt take my fleets in the peace that followed. So I simply put them in Cadiz and told the Brits that he had little to fear from the Spanish. However, the English crossed the channel with a 75k man army and my jaw hit the floor. So we audited his production and he wasnt cheating. The Turk was happily paying for solid gold toliets with English money. He had sold the undefendable provinces to the English at 50$ a pop. I cant say I blame him. I would have done the same.

ASHBERY76 -> (4/15/2003 1:36:55 AM)
It would be nice for us non EIA players to know some details about this game, matrix need's better advertising about their games methinks...:(

Uncle Toby -> I disagree (4/15/2003 5:44:06 AM)
From ‘Le Tondu’ "No set of rules is ever perfect and attempts to circumvent them are always a danger when you wargame with players who have an extreme desire to just "win" the game -at any cost. These players don't care about history or the ethics of taking advantage of mistakes or omissions made by the rule set writers." I have to say I disagree with every point of this post. The rules of many games are perfect, chess, backgammon, craps, poker, et. et. What is probably meant is no game which aspires to simulation has ‘perfect’ rules. This is quite true, the degree of complexity of the system being simulated generally follows the degree to which the rules fail to achieve their goal. They are generally neither a good game or a good simulation and are thus thoroughly imperfect. Characterizing all people who exploit rules without someone else’s idea of restraint as just wanting to win is quite mistaken. I personally exploit rules because I play games to exercise my mind, I want the satisfaction of coming up with a clever solution to the problems the game presents, I don’t care if my position has no hope of victory as long as it has potential for inventive thinking. Informal constraints and the arguments over what’s ‘realistic’ are a silly, contrived annoyance to me. I care about history, I care so much I regard the idea you can simulate it in a game as ridiculous. History as the inspiration for a game is fine, like the inspiration for a painting or a film but to confound it in any way with the real thing is fantastical to the degree of simple-mindedness.

Ancient One -> (4/15/2003 9:06:06 PM)
Uncle Toby, of course it's impossible to simulate history perfectly in a game, but certain historical factors can be abstracted to present a historical feel.

Le Tondu -> Oh my. (4/15/2003 9:18:41 PM)
Uncle Toby, you disagree with another -here??? Oh my. ;) Perfection is a strange word. I consider it a verb rather and not a noun. Anyways, what you find perfect about the games listed, another could find fault with. Life is so subjective. Is the pitcher half empty or is it half full. To each their own. If you want to exploit a mistake or omission by the rule writers just to win your game, go ahead. Do whatever you want. I don't care. I have been wargaming for thirty years and in my opinion, pregame agreements are essential in order to facilitate the kind of game that one wants. Without them, you just end up deserving what you get. Too much rule lawyering will go on and disputes off the table will rule the day and that is not what I call a pleasant experience. You see, winning or losing can be a pleasant experience because the wargame is a celebration of history that is something only the player can fulfill. I give it my best and if I lose the game, it doesn't matter because I play wargames to have fun. Have a nice day. :)

Reknoy -> (4/16/2003 1:41:10 AM)
I agree that pregame agreements are fine. I also like PBeM in that you have a GM who is the ultimate authority. In our current game, Wynter is doing a super job of listening to a few pointed discussions and rendering a decision. One way to simulate that in a FtF game is to appoint third party GMs for any open issue. Resolution should be something that can be attained quickly. In our game, we have incorporated simul move and advanced naval rules -- neither of which I was excited about. But the GM has done a marvelous job of ruling when needed and keeping everything moving without sacrificing the ability to clarify and (where needed) make changes. Perfect example -- in the ANR the victor can claim hulks. Hulks, per the ANR, can even be towed to an ALLY's port. Thereafter, it can actually be refitted in that port. If the alliance breaks, then the hulks can change hands. The net result is the single most powerful diplomatic artifice that the game ever created. Nearly as devastating as an unconditional, but worse in that it lasts for three months at least (the time to refit a hulk, which does not include any months before the economic phase). What I mean is, the ally that controls the hulks (and in a large battle this can be a substantial number) can leverage this control politically to incredible effect. Something so potentially game altering had to go. We already had one instance take place that stung me personally, but I was in no way advocating that we take it back (and I would not have done so again regardless, so the change made little practical difference to me). Anyway, the GM ultimately eliminated the rule after consulting the group. So the point to this long story is that the most heinous results can be taken care of within the play of the game. But to Uncle Toby's point, I also love to get creative and defeat the enemy in a new and unique way. If it's in the rules, why not? Anyway, enough of my ranting... :)

Wynter -> Foolish Turkman... (4/16/2003 2:20:18 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]The Turk was happily paying for solid gold toliets with English money. He had sold the undefendable provinces to the English at 50$ a pop. I cant say I blame him. I would have done the same. [/B][/QUOTE] Well, I play the Turk in a ftf game and in our game the British also had their eye on my Ottoman Empire. They even offered me approx the same amount of money your Turk got, but I declined. For one it is MY Ottoman Empire, MY pride. Money is just money... And I need the corps counters of those provinces of the Ottoman Empire, their worth a lot to me. The Brit then tried to take them by force, but I annihilated their high morale army with superiour numbers. So, I think the Turk in your game was a fool to have sold his provinces. Wynter.

Chiteng -> Re: Foolish Turkman... (4/16/2003 2:52:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter [B]Well, I play the Turk in a ftf game and in our game the British also had their eye on my Ottoman Empire. They even offered me approx the same amount of money your Turk got, but I declined. For one it is MY Ottoman Empire, MY pride. Money is just money... And I need the corps counters of those provinces of the Ottoman Empire, their worth a lot to me. The Brit then tried to take them by force, but I annihilated their high morale army with superiour numbers. So, I think the Turk in your game was a fool to have sold his provinces. Wynter. [/B][/QUOTE] Well he had a VERY powerfull fleet and totally dominated the Med. Even the Spainish shied away. Hard to do that w/o cash.

Uncle Toby -> My oh my. (4/16/2003 11:34:04 AM)
'Le Tondu' Personal characterizations are not discussion they are, as Cicero pointed out, the resort of someone who knows their argument to be weak. Misrepresentations likewise, if you read my post again you will find I specifically point out that I do not exploit rules to win but because it is only by using the rules as they are that full scope can be given to the game as a mental exercise. A game where the rules are some sort of ongoing consensus may be an enjoyable group therapy, it may even be a celebration of history but it is not much of a game in the strict sense of the word, games being by definition a "systematic activity carried on for sport". It appears you propose that games should include unwritten and ad hoc components as well as systematic ones. There is nothing whatever strange about the word ‘perfection’, if you are going to use a private language please provide translations into standard English and we can avoid misunderstandings. I too have been wargamming for over thirty years and my experience is rules lawyers are only a problem if rules are badly written or the game is badly designed. You don’t get people arguing about the rules of the games I mentioned. My solution would be to avoid bad games. I too play wargames to have fun, my idea of fun is to learn challenging things and to do something clever, victory and defeat are irrelevant to me, I throughly enjoy playing against an expert opponent and learning by being soundly beaten. This is why I object to the characterization in your post of all persons who like to exploit rules as only wanting to win at ant cost. It seems your experiences have had a rather narrow scope for all their duration. I also think that games have about the same relation to history as films, which is similar to the relationship between the Serengeti ecosystem and a child’s room full of stuffed toy animals. ‘Nice’ was originally a synonym for ‘silly’, you can have a nice day if you like, I don’t like to get in to bad habits.

Chiteng -> Re: My oh my. (4/16/2003 11:38:49 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uncle Toby [B]'Le Tondu' Personal characterizations are not discussion they are, as Cicero pointed out, the resort of someone who knows their argument to be weak. Misrepresentations likewise, if you read my post again you will find I specifically point out that I do not exploit rules to win but because it is only by using the rules as they are that full scope can be given to the game as a mental exercise. A game where the rules are some sort of ongoing consensus may be an enjoyable group therapy, it may even be a celebration of history but it is not much of a game in the strict sense of the word, games being by definition a "systematic activity carried on for sport". It appears you propose that games should include unwritten and ad hoc components as well as systematic ones. There is nothing whatever strange about the word ‘perfection’, if you are going to use a private language please provide translations into standard English and we can avoid misunderstandings. I too have been wargamming for over thirty years and my experience is rules lawyers are only a problem if rules are badly written or the game is badly designed. You don’t get people arguing about the rules of the games I mentioned. My solution would be to avoid bad games. I too play wargames to have fun, my idea of fun is to learn challenging things and to do something clever, victory and defeat are irrelevant to me, I throughly enjoy playing against an expert opponent and learning by being soundly beaten. This is why I object to the characterization in your post of all persons who like to exploit rules as only wanting to win at ant cost. It seems your experiences have had a rather narrow scope for all their duration. I also think that games have about the same relation to history as films, which is similar to the relationship between the Serengeti ecosystem and a child’s room full of stuffed toy animals. ‘Nice’ was originally a synonym for ‘silly’, you can have a nice day if you like, I don’t like to get in to bad habits. [/B][/QUOTE] Then you best avoid this one Toby. The naval rules are shall we say, less than clear. The political rules are subject to different interpetations. If you dont agree before your start, many games end after three turns. The primary attraction of the game will be, that a computer doesnt allow multiple interpetations. Someone will have to make a decision. Like this. I have garrisoned a town with 12 inf factors. it is besieged and falls. No political point change. compared to: I have garrisoned a town with a corp that contains 12 inf factors. It is besieged and falls. net result +1 political point. Frankly I dont see the difference. Maybe YOU do.

mars -> (4/16/2003 1:01:39 PM)
How about the fun one for me currently. France at War with Austria, Austrians are in forts and as soon as the French break down the walls they surrender - no points gained!!!

Chiteng -> (4/16/2003 1:28:06 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mars [B]How about the fun one for me currently. France at War with Austria, Austrians are in forts and as soon as the French break down the walls they surrender - no points gained!!! [/B][/QUOTE] Well it should be easy to force a surrender if he isnt fielding a mobile force to oppose you. But it does cut down on the PP gain. If I dont intend to Fight, I normally simply surrender upon Declaration of war. It kills his fun. Unless it is winter, in which case make him pay the cash for supply. That always hurts in winter.

Le Tondu -> Huh? (4/16/2003 9:21:04 PM)
No offense meant to anyone, but I am just a little surprised to see this. Just because it isn't disallowed by the rules then it is ok to do it?? Does that go for anything? This is what I meant about taking advantage of a mistake or omission by the rule writers. Historically speaking, would Austria ever do that?? I think that history answered that one. It would have been political suicide for the Austrian Emperor to do that. The "Holy Roman Emperor" surrendering without a fight? He wouldn't have lasted a week. They were too proud a people to do that. What others want is ok by me in their games, but in my games a more historical approach is what I will be after. This is also what I mean about a pregame discussion about what type of game one wants. With so many rules, it may be impossible to cover every "oddity", but an agreement that sets a more historical flavor might be in order for those that want it. The rules seem to allow Turkey to invade France or England, but should it be allowed by the players? An occaisional "anything goes" type of game would allow just that -anything. I guess that could be fun sometimes. A novelty to say the least, but all of the time?

Hoplosternum -> (4/16/2003 10:39:32 PM)
Hello Le Tondu, I agree with having a pregame agreement :) It does indeed save quite a lot of bad feeling later. It will also help to make clear what kind of gamers you are playing against - Rules Lawyers, Power Gamers etc. etc. Nor are many game rules except the rather simple (if brilliant) games Uncle Toby mentioned so perfect that the won't be many loop holes and possible exploits for those that want to use them. However there are some problems in EiA (for example) that are clearly down to the design. The immediate giving up if you don't think will win is because it is BY FAR the best strategy if you are in that position. In EiA you are rewarded by surrendering early because you don't suffer by losing lots of troops, minors and VPs (from lost battles etc.) BEFORE you then surrender. These are not minor things. I was rather hoping that matrix would have made some changes to the VP system at least to avoid this or at least help offset the disadvantages of fighting on in an unequal struggle. But it's clear that they are not going to. So I am all for pregame agreements. If I play Le Tondu and he wants some kind of rule that you have to fight for x months or until x% of your troops are gone before you can sue for peace that's fine by me. But it should be a house rule or accepted gentleman's agreement that everyone has to do. Because as the rules stand it certainly is NOT a good strategy to follow. If people are going to fall out over playing the game well as opposed to playing the game in the spirit of the times that should come out early. Everyone is likely to happier :D

Wynter -> (4/17/2003 2:24:40 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoplosternum [B]In EiA you are rewarded by surrendering early because you don't suffer by losing lots of troops, minors and VPs (from lost battles etc.) BEFORE you then surrender. These are not minor things. [/B][/QUOTE] On the other hand, by surrendering early, the aggressor could ask for an unconditional surrender. Accepting an unconditional surrender just to avoid losing troops, etc could have a tremendous effect on your nation (lose 3 corps, lose 3 provinces and lose your printed value of income)... I would never give up without a decent fight. Wynter.

Uncle Toby -> (4/17/2003 2:33:38 AM)
If ‘pregame agreement’ is a synonym for ‘rules addendum’ I’m all for it. In the five or so games of EiA I’ve played which lasted long enough to be worthy of the name we changed the rules with every game. What we didn’t do is revise the rules by consensus during the game according to some notion of historicity. We also didn’t have vague notions in the rules. The rules were played as written and we had no arguments about them I can recall, though we did have a lot of short games where what some would call exploiting the rules caused an abrupt end of the game. That didn’t bother me, a game lasts as long as it lasts. The larger observation I make about this subject is that this notion if historicity is the root of all the problems with EiA which make it so frustrating. Give it up and design a game not a Napoleonic era simulator, that task is impossible and will leave you with neither the one thing or the other only a sickly hybrid. I can understand the love of history which make someone want to enjoy a simulation, I just don’t think games are a very good method. Become a re-enactor or write historical novels, if you want to relive history, more games have been spoiled by this notion of simulation than by anything except marketing departments.

Chiteng -> (4/17/2003 2:36:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter [B]On the other hand, by surrendering early, the aggressor could ask for an unconditional surrender. Accepting an unconditional surrender just to avoid losing troops, etc could have a tremendous effect on your nation (lose 3 corps, lose 3 provinces and lose your printed value of income)... I would never give up without a decent fight. Wynter. [/B][/QUOTE] Far better than losing troops . You dont understand. in the classic game you MUST beat Napoleon. You have no other choice. If you do NOT, you will be attacked by france every 18 months. It is simple as that. He will crush you. He will give your allies a 24 month peace, and he will never have to face both of you again. he wins. EVERY war with France must be examined for its effect upon that issue. If you cant fight, you sure dont need to help him win. EXCEPT is winter. In winter it is worth making him pay for supply.

Chiteng -> (4/17/2003 2:38:20 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uncle Toby [B]If ‘pregame agreement’ is a synonym for ‘rules addendum’ I’m all for it. In the five or so games of EiA I’ve played which lasted long enough to be worthy of the name we changed the rules with every game. What we didn’t do is revise the rules by consensus during the game according to some notion of historicity. We also didn’t have vague notions in the rules. The rules were played as written and we had no arguments about them I can recall, though we did have a lot of short games where what some would call exploiting the rules caused an abrupt end of the game. That didn’t bother me, a game lasts as long as it lasts. The larger observation I make about this subject is that this notion if historicity is the root of all the problems with EiA which make it so frustrating. Give it up and design a game not a Napoleonic era simulator, that task is impossible and will leave you with neither the one thing or the other only a sickly hybrid. I can understand the love of history which make someone want to enjoy a simulation, I just don’t think games are a very good method. Become a re-enactor or write historical novels, if you want to relive history, more games have been spoiled by this notion of simulation than by anything except marketing departments. [/B][/QUOTE] Even if you were right, not everyone shares that view. they wont vanish.

Wynter -> (4/17/2003 3:04:29 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Far better than losing troops . You dont understand. in the classic game you MUST beat Napoleon. You have no other choice. If you do NOT, you will be attacked by france every 18 months. It is simple as that. He will crush you. He will give your allies a 24 month peace, and he will never have to face both of you again. he wins. EVERY war with France must be examined for its effect upon that issue. If you cant fight, you sure dont need to help him win. EXCEPT is winter. In winter it is worth making him pay for supply. [/B][/QUOTE] I do understand. :) For the moment I'm in a ftf game where Austria and Prussia just surrendered instead of fighting Napoleon. The net result was that both Prussia and Austria didn't lose many troops, but France didn't lose any troops either. And that's the whole problem now. France was able to powerbuild for more than three years without any decent battle, his army is maxed to the top AND his cities are full of infantry garrisons? He could basicly lose his entire standing army and still has enough infantry to rebuild every single corps. Even if you can't win from France, you should fight him just to some damage on his army. The troops you can kill won't be used against any other nation. Wynter.

Chiteng -> (4/17/2003 3:23:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter [B]I do understand. :) For the moment I'm in a ftf game where Austria and Prussia just surrendered instead of fighting Napoleon. The net result was that both Prussia and Austria didn't lose many troops, but France didn't lose any troops either. And that's the whole problem now. France was able to powerbuild for more than three years without any decent battle, his army is maxed to the top AND his cities are full of infantry garrisons? He could basicly lose his entire standing army and still has enough infantry to rebuild every single corps. Even if you can't win from France, you should fight him just to some damage on his army. The troops you can kill won't be used against any other nation. Wynter. [/B][/QUOTE] True except that the REAL Grande Armie is those 7 corp. Unless he is fighting in France, garrisons are useless. I have seen battles that stripped the those corps of troops in just two turns. Yes he can run back to France...but you can do alot of damage in the meantime.

Reknoy -> (4/17/2003 3:59:25 AM)
I gotta weigh in on this discussion! But later! Still time to play with my kids.

Hoplosternum -> (4/17/2003 4:36:45 AM)
Hi Wynter, I was refering to times when the war appears very one sided. There are times when you know you have little or no chance. And the outcome is going to lead to your Unconditional surrender anyway. My point was under these conditions why fight and make your losses greater and your recovery take longer? I accept that there are certain countries who should perhaps fight anyway. Maybe Austria and Prussia fall into this category against France? But if defeat seems inevitable before it begins then why let your opponent take more territories, VPs and cause more casualties to you? But I don't see how this would be the case with France vs Prussia and Austria early - IMHO they have a great chance. I am talking about very one sided wars. e.g: Russia, England and Spain against the Turks ;) Obviously if you believe that your attacker(s) are themselves about to be attacked or cannot afford to spend the time to force your surrender then that is something different even if you are weak. But often that is not the case - then the rules make the immediate surrender (unhistorical and gamey though many think it is) the better strategy IME.

Le Tondu -> Many Thanks (4/17/2003 7:31:16 AM)
Wow, what a conversation. I am grateful for it because I am learning much. Oh man, I can't wait to get this game. I will be as patient as it takes, so no need to hurry Matrix. Do it right. :) I wonder, is there any word about pre-orders?

Chiteng -> Re: Many Thanks (4/17/2003 7:46:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu [B]Wow, what a conversation. I am grateful for it because I am learning much. Oh man, I can't wait to get this game. I will be as patient as it takes, so no need to hurry Matrix. Do it right. :) I wonder, is there any word about pre-orders? [/B][/QUOTE] This is nothing...wait till your trying to get a fleet to England... there are the REAL fights. And regardless what anyone tells you, the rules are NOT clear. I hope they use the War College rules instead of the original edition.

Wynter -> Re: Re: Many Thanks (4/17/2003 2:14:45 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]I hope they use the War College rules instead of the original edition. [/B][/QUOTE] War College rules? I don't seem to know those rules. Could you post them, please. Wynter.

Chiteng -> Re: Re: Re: Many Thanks (4/17/2003 2:38:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter [B]War College rules? I don't seem to know those rules. Could you post them, please. Wynter. [/B][/QUOTE] HUH? I think they are on Grognards...you cant really be serious.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.28125