Quick update

Quick update (Full Version)

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

Message

Marshall Ellis -> Quick update (5/18/2003 6:59:12 AM)
Hey guys: Just a quick status. Again thanks for all the input. Thanks in-large-part to you're posts, we have a few updates: + Cossacks, will be in the game. + Freikorps (Austrian and Russian) will be in the game. + Spanish Guerillas, will be in the game. + Naval interception will be handled by clicking and telling a ship to be on patrol (Thus attempting to auto intercept any ENEMY fleet that comes through or next to its area). + We will have some Kingdoms in the game (At least the Ottoman and Poland) and probably all of them since once you code the first few, the rest are simply data entries. + Turkish feudal units will exist as well (Austrian Insurrections as well). - We will not have a bidding process for nations in REV 1 but probably in later release. Anyway, that's all of the good news and now for the cost of the above: This will delay the release a bit but not much. We feel that this is worth it because these items are necessary to "fun" game play. QUESTION: I'm having some issues with conquering a home province of a major nation. Tell me what happens in the following situation: France and Austria are at war. Austrian forces move into Dijon (Capital of Burgundy province) and manages to stay there in the city (no siege was necessary) for one month? Does Austria conquer Burgundy and begin receiving the money and manpower on the next economic phase? You guys deserve a lot of credit because we listened and you spoke so again thank you! Thank you

mariovalleemtl -> ! (5/18/2003 9:42:42 AM)
Does Austria conquer Burgundy and begin receiving the money and manpower on the next economic phase? No.

Le Tondu -> I am blown away! (5/18/2003 10:28:03 AM)
Holy cow batman, I was just thinking about this sort of thing earlier today. I would say that Austria should be able to get some sort of economic boost from conquering Burgundy, but unless it was a French province that was largely Royalist (I forget if Burgundy was), I think that the manpower boost should be minimal --if that at all. Yeah, some money can be obtained fairly quickly, but some places paid up on the payment plan. :) Manpower is a different ball of wax altogether. It should depend upon the province being conquered. Just how much manpower Napoleon recieved from conquering the Tyrol? I dare say not much. As for the money part, is the province's well bottomless? What I am saying is that the first conquering army should get the lion's share of the loot. The next conquering army ought not to get as much and the returns should continue to diminish as long as the province keeps being conquered until things reach a certain point. This affect should be progressively mitigated with time. Also, shouldn't forage be affected similarly? I am real glad to see the additions. Thanks Marshall. Lastly, I applaud Matrix Games and the folks who are working on this project for taking the time to add to the game. Please take even more time if it means "doing it right." :)

ABP -> Controlling major power provinces (5/18/2003 6:05:02 PM)
If this is a question on what the rule is in EiA then NO. The enemy power can only prevent the owner from getting money and manpower. He only gets money and manpower for himself when the province is ceded. If you just ask what is possible, then the question is open.

Reknoy -> (5/18/2003 9:54:21 PM)
Again -- no conquest. In variants such as 1792, control of certain provinces (for certain major powers) resulted in partial recovery of income (and maybe manpower, I cannot recall). Allowing this on a larger scale would be fine for income (attribute a portion of income to the controlling power), but manpower, too? Reknoy

Marshall Ellis -> Point taken (5/18/2003 11:20:13 PM)
Hey all: Reknoy: Sorry for not addressing you in my reply on in the "teleportation" topic since I was primarily answering your question but anyway ... I digress. Point taken. I've gone over the rules which do state that you CANNOT conquer (10.2.2) an unceded province which seems to support what you guys are saying but it does seem odd that there is no ECONOMIC benefit for conquering a province (That whole "spoils of war" thing and all??? The manpower issue is a little more simple. Conscripting from a freshly conquered portion of a major nation is less likely to yield positive results as I would see it. Anyway, what about it? A game option? Receive half of the money income? Looking for interesting suggestions... Thank you

Reknoy -> (5/19/2003 1:02:54 AM)
I would say that, for example, if Prussians controlled Lorraine during an economic phase, they would stand a chance of taking in some income. Likewise Turkey in Crimea, etc. (wherever there is some national emphathy). However, this is not to say that the game cannot allow it regardless. I would think that half of the printed income for a province would be cool. No portion of trade, manpower, etc. The question then comes, however, as to what to do in the case of a minor country that is under occupation but has not been conquered? Perhaps something like this: If a MP denies income to another MP by virtue of occupation of capital, etc., then the occupying MP gains half the printed value of the denied income (from minors or provinces). Then, of course, if a MP occupies the national capital, what then? Is it appropriate to draw out the logic, or does it become ridiculous to think that Britain would be able to collect half of all French printed income if they manage to take Paris in one month (which happens to be an economic phase). Just thinking through it. Need anyone else on the team? :) Reknoy

Zebelh -> (5/19/2003 3:36:28 AM)
I think EIA rules works just fine. Perhaps later campaigns (like the 1792 campaign) can have special options for collecting money (alternately add it as an option like EIH 7.7.5 plunder) Cheers

Chiteng -> Re: Point taken (5/19/2003 4:24:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis [B]Hey all: Reknoy: Sorry for not addressing you in my reply on in the "teleportation" topic since I was primarily answering your question but anyway ... I digress. Point taken. I've gone over the rules which do state that you CANNOT conquer (10.2.2) an unceded province which seems to support what you guys are saying but it does seem odd that there is no ECONOMIC benefit for conquering a province (That whole "spoils of war" thing and all??? The manpower issue is a little more simple. Conscripting from a freshly conquered portion of a major nation is less likely to yield positive results as I would see it. Anyway, what about it? A game option? Receive half of the money income? Looking for interesting suggestions... Thank you [/B][/QUOTE] The original designer felt that national asperations played a major part of the Napoleonic struggle. Thus he felt that unless formally ceded the people in a conquered province would NOT help the invader. He had a point since they really didnt in Prussia Tyrolia Austria Spain Russia and France. Once the people got a taste of the occupier, they could not wait to get rid of him.

Capitaine -> (5/19/2003 5:01:49 AM)
In looking at this issue, you have to understand what the Napoleonic Wars were about. They weren't really about "conquering" and annexing MP provinces like in the Seven Years War with Prussian and Austria over Silesia. Also, armies occupying enemy provinces did not seem to set up an occupational government, they just foraged there, denied the enemy the ability to forage and profit from their own province, and probably even paid the locals for supplies when possible. The Allies wanted to rid Europe of Napoleon (not divinely "royal") and restore the Bourbons to pre-Revolutionary France. Napoleon wanted to have "good" relations with the MP's he conquered, not annex them to France. Minor Countries and Kingdoms were a different matter, though. I think the rules are probably good as is in this regard. Getting economic value beyond forage from a MP province would be tantamount to setting up tax collectors and local government by the conquering power, and annexing that province. The other powers of Europe would not have countenanced such a thing IMO.

ZONER -> (5/19/2003 8:11:34 AM)
I agree that the original rules work just fine. Also in my experiance this temporary control of home country provinces through more than one or two economic phases does not occur very often.

Wynter -> Re: Quick update (5/19/2003 3:35:17 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis [B]France and Austria are at war. Austrian forces move into Dijon (Capital of Burgundy province) and manages to stay there in the city (no siege was necessary) for one month? Does Austria conquer Burgundy and begin receiving the money and manpower on the next economic phase? [/B][/QUOTE] No, a home province can't be conquered. However the EiH plunder rule is actually quite nice, I think. Maybe that rule can be incorporated into EiA. Jeroen.

pfnognoff -> (5/19/2003 4:40:15 PM)
Well, basic rules must be respected for the basic version, and rules say no money, no nothing... On the options screen there could be something like pillage the province. This option if turned on would give pillaging MP some portion of the printed value. Decision to pillage would than be taken into account when calculating revolt risk for the province (there is something like that in EiH version). Would this work for the period, historically? Would troops that pillage give the money back to the nation treasury? There is also an idea that foraging in a province could decrease it's money value for the next economic phase. It is hard to play this ideas without a computer or a GM. But now we will have a computer version, so printed values can be dynamic. This is just an idea for the future releases, not to be taken seriously for the first release, which must follow all the basic rules.

carnifex -> (5/20/2003 2:44:50 AM)
the enemy cash that is not collected is all the incentive i need i don't need to plunder

mmurray821 -> (5/20/2003 8:21:14 PM)
Thanks for listening Marshall! I don't mind the game being delayed to add great stuff like that. A small, one time boost for plunder sounds about right. Like, the economic total for one month, and that is it type thing. Keep up the good work!

Von Rom -> (5/20/2003 9:24:51 PM)
You might also offer the player a choice: A panel pops up: 1) Plunder province for one-time loot (and risk some unrest from populace); or 2) Conscript troops from province (and risk some urest); or 3) Do nothing Thanks for the additions to the game. Take your time - willing to wait for the best game possible :)

carnifex -> (5/21/2003 4:07:23 AM)
i would just like to add that the scarcity of cash is one of the most important features of the EiA system nations are forever trying to scrounge up just a tiny bit more cash in order to support their armies in the field before introducing any extra means of cash entering the game, like the proposed plunder system, i think it behooves the designers to make sure that you don't wind up with a game where nations become flush with cash

oleb -> (5/23/2003 12:30:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by carnifex [B]i would just like to add that the scarcity of cash is one of the most important features of the EiA system [/B][/QUOTE] The EiH plunder rule: plunder costs -1pp pr. city and is conducted at the end of the land phase. It yields an income of $.5 pr spire of the city. The plunder marker stays for two eco. phases, and the plunder income is deducted from the owners province income. Ottoman does not suffer pp loss from plundering Russian and Austrian cities, nor do they suffer pp loss from plundering Ottoman cities. Plunder gives a -2 forage to the area, and Russia can plunder its own cities for free assuming there are enemy corps in Russia. I`m not sure if Marshall is asking how it is in EiA, or how it should be. In EiA, merely occupying a enemy province capital is not sufficient to gain income from the province. You must receive the province in a peace agreement, or to conquer a previously conquered province. Even then, the owner will not receive the manpower of the province. Adding the plunder rules from EiH would be nice, but please stick to the EiA rules redarding home nation provinces.

ABP -> Plunder etc. (5/23/2003 2:42:24 AM)
I think no matter what you decide it should be as an option. I think as others that denying the enemy of income is reward enough. However it could be and excellent way to raise tension, if you limit the plunder to a few strategically selected provinces of major powers. It could be that Russia can plunder West Galicia (Austrian) and Masovia (Prussian) and Bessarabia (Turkish/Ottoman). Prussia could then plunder in Bohemia (Austrian), Champagne (French) and Lithuania (Russian) etc. etc. Or you could use it as a tool to direct players desire for minors. Austria could plunder Naples for instance.

Chiteng -> (5/23/2003 2:54:23 AM)
I dont like the rule at all. It would make invading Russia all but totally immpossible.

Black Hat -> (5/24/2003 3:23:17 AM)
The other problem with EiA was that a siege, foraging and "storming" a city caused or could cause long term disruption of the economy. This is not reflected in EiA. Simpler book keeping. Plus who got the booty? How much ended up in the Marshal�s Chateau or the nap sac and how much did the Crown get? I know you just "shot the Irish" (please insert your favorite repressed nationality) to keep them from stealing �everything�. The other problem is that some troops tend to dissolve as they cart home their plunder, Cossacks???? It would make the decision on weather to surrender after a breach more realistic if the loss of the Siege caused the ruin of provincial income for a couple of years. I can�t remember, do you get the trade income off the controlled port? So would the Austrian and Brits get to count the trade income from the controlled enemy home province port?

dpstafford -> (5/24/2003 3:24:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]I dont like the rule at all. It would make invading Russia all but totally immpossible. [/B][/QUOTE] Which is was........

Chiteng -> (5/24/2003 3:52:47 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black Hat [B]The other problem with EiA was that a siege, foraging and "storming" a city caused or could cause long term disruption of the economy. This is not reflected in EiA. Simpler book keeping. Plus who got the booty? How much ended up in the Marshal�s Chateau or the nap sac and how much did the Crown get? I know you just "shot the Irish" (please insert your favorite repressed nationality) to keep them from stealing �everything�. The other problem is that some troops tend to dissolve as they cart home their plunder, Cossacks???? It would make the decision on weather to surrender after a breach more realistic if the loss of the Siege caused the ruin of provincial income for a couple of years. I can�t remember, do you get the trade income off the controlled port? So would the Austrian and Brits get to count the trade income from the controlled enemy home province port? [/B][/QUOTE] Agreed storming a city should result in auto-pillage. But only if resisted.

Chiteng -> (5/24/2003 3:53:48 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford [B]Which is was........ [/B][/QUOTE] Except that Napoleon DID invade and he DID make it to Moscow. In fact he stayed there a couple months.

Capitaine -> (5/24/2003 7:56:01 PM)
Exactly so, Chiteng. And had the Russians not been disposed to burn their own capitol city, he likely could've wintered there. The burning of Moscow [I]by the Russians[/I] was what mandated the disastrous "retreat" in the middle of winter. La Grande Armee could not survive that deep in Russia w/o "winter quarters". Doubtful (as history has shown) that any other MP would burn their own capitol. French burn Paris? Never. Austrians burn Vienna? Nope. English burn London? No way. Only the Russians, likely b/c they were so mystical and truly [I]believed[/I] Napoleon was the antichrist. :rolleyes:

Chiteng -> (5/24/2003 11:53:37 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine [B]Exactly so, Chiteng. And had the Russians not been disposed to burn their own capitol city, he likely could've wintered there. The burning of Moscow [I]by the Russians[/I] was what mandated the disastrous "retreat" in the middle of winter. La Grande Armee could not survive that deep in Russia w/o "winter quarters". Doubtful (as history has shown) that any other MP would burn their own capitol. French burn Paris? Never. Austrians burn Vienna? Nope. English burn London? No way. Only the Russians, likely b/c they were so mystical and truly [I]believed[/I] Napoleon was the antichrist. :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE] Moscow itself was NOT what I would be fearfull of. If there was a pillage rule to use, you would be very luckt to make it to moscow with ANYTHING.

Von Rom -> (5/27/2003 11:39:40 PM)
If you are Napoleon and decide to invade Russia, you may decide that your troops can live off the land through plundering Russia's wheat, livestock, etc. So you invade. When you invade a Russian province a panel pops up: 1) Plunder province for one-time loot (and risk some unrest from populace); or 2) Conscript troops from province (and risk some urest); or 3) Do nothing You choose to plunder the province. But lo and behold, you find out there is NOTHING to plunder! Why? The Russians have beaten you to it (the game should provide the possibility that if Russia is invaded, then the Russians may conduct a Scorched Earth policy to deny forage to the invader). But Fog of War will never let you know whether the provinces laying before you have been plundered. So, the big choice is: Do you keep going, hoping that the Russians WON'T plunder their own provinces (by doing so, they are also denying themselves valuable resources), OR do you withdraw, delay invasion, until you have built-up adequate supplies to bring with you? If you decide to invade, then you may find yourself facing many of Napoleon's dilemmas (lack of supply, winter weather, Cossacks, desertions, etc); if you decide to withdraw, then you may face a possible Coalition of Nations (activated by Russia) that may set you back even further. . .

Reknoy -> (5/28/2003 2:23:56 AM)
I have succeeded in invading Russia (as France) with supply chains. It was basically a one on one (as Britain was ineffective in helping Russia). I had only one set of depots. Granted I never pinned him completely, but I had Moscow and St. Pete and Kiev, etc. Plus there are strategies for invading through the Black Sea. The whole point about the invasion hinging on being able to forage or pillage is somewhat of a red herring, imo. Russia is the last place I'd choose to forage with or without pillaging. Especially in the winter. An army of any decent size will get decimated if they forage a lot in that case. At least, under the rules of EiA that I am aware of. Cheers. Reknoy

Von Rom -> (5/28/2003 10:46:16 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy [B]I have succeeded in invading Russia (as France) with supply chains. It was basically a one on one (as Britain was ineffective in helping Russia). I had only one set of depots. Granted I never pinned him completely, but I had Moscow and St. Pete and Kiev, etc. Plus there are strategies for invading through the Black Sea. The whole point about the invasion hinging on being able to forage or pillage is somewhat of a red herring, imo. Russia is the last place I'd choose to forage with or without pillaging. Especially in the winter. An army of any decent size will get decimated if they forage a lot in that case. At least, under the rules of EiA that I am aware of. Cheers. Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE] But what happens when your supply lines have been severed, which should be a possibility, the further you drive into Russia? Also, Britain's whole European strategy was to maintain a balance of power in Europe. Wth its huge fleet, it should be able to blocade French/European ports (or at least attempt to do so). At the very least attack French interests in Spain (if it is there at that point in the game) to draw off French troops from Russia. Perhaps there should a "Bad Boy" value in the game, similar to EU2, such that, the more powerful a nation becomes, and the more it attacks other nations, then the more other nations will ally together to fight against that nation.

Reknoy -> (5/28/2003 11:09:47 PM)
Actually, I had the benefit of controlling Poland at the time (note to aspiring Prussian players: Poland is a minor country that can be taken in a conditional peace land pick -- OUCH). My supply therefore started from Poland and Britain was unable to effect the same blockade. I had a plentiful supply of minor country corps to use as "sentries" over the supply chains and further as buffers for the "in between" areas between depots (which I would usually garrison with 5 factors each). And I did not cover Russia -- just enough to get the surrender. Reknoy

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.351563