Re: Re: What do you think of this??? (Full Version)

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



Message


Wynter -> Re: Re: What do you think of this??? (5/30/2003 2:50:32 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
But right now, from the looks of things, the naval situation will be *much* more dicey for GB, which seriously tilts the game towards france. As far as i can tell, right now it might be bad enough to break the game, because it looks like GB is going to get forced into a UC surrender 50% of the time in 1805.[/QUOTE]

Why would that be?
Britain sets up his naval forces after France, so he can blockade the French fleet. Normally he should have enough ships left to place some fleets around Britian and give those fleets the "patrol/intercept everything" command. It will be one lucky Frenchman who can dodge all fleets and make it to Britain.

Jeroen.




Wynter -> Re: Re: Insurrections a must! (5/30/2003 2:54:01 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
The whole point of the Ins Corp, is to force an unexpected battle
NOT on the terms of the moving player.
Typical play would have you simply watch the enemy move
and when a Corp you DIDNT want to see at the MAIN battle site
moved into the area you pop up the INS corp.
Now regardless of who wins...That corps wont show up this turn
wherever you wanted it.
If that Corp happened to be say....the French Arty Corp...that
really hurt the French. See? [/QUOTE]

You are presuming that movement is conducted corps by corps and not the whole stack at the same time.
I know the rules say that you move corps by corps until every corps has moved, but I always played with a 'houserule' that you can move a stack of corps together.

Marshall, how will the computer game handle it? Corps by corps movement or stack movement?

Jeroen.




timothy_stone -> Re: Re: Re: What do you think of this??? (5/30/2003 3:34:39 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter
[B]Why would that be?
Britain sets up his naval forces after France, so he can blockade the French fleet. Normally he should have enough ships left to place some fleets around Britian and give those fleets the "patrol/intercept everything" command. It will be one lucky Frenchman who can dodge all fleets and make it to Britain.

Jeroen. [/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=blue]How familiar are you with the game? I'll give you a rough example. As france, i have 4 fleets plus holland, yes? let's put one of each in amsterdam, antwerp, le havre, st malo, brest. corps on each fleet. different folks like different setups, i like 30s at le havre, even division of remainder. that often makes GB put 2 fleets at le havre

now - if FR rolls control of denmark (or portugal or sweden, i will use denmark for example) - place the danish fleet in hamburg/amsterdam SZ.

if GB goes first and attacks it, it retreats one sea area - usually north since east is evenmore disastrous. in FR turn, with 7 movement points it canmake it to brest - the combined brest and danish forces will outnumber the british fleet. so they escape. Now the combined danish/brest fleets (and 1 corps) go to st malo - those 3 fleets will beat the GB fleet there too.

so now you have 2 fleets with corps loose in the channel. The danes ended movement in the st malo bb. the st malo and brest fleets can spring the antwerp fleet, and you get teh idea - fr will end the turnwith at least 4 corps ready to land on GB (often the le havre fleet stays in port).

40 FR inf and davout will burn london - and the next turn often the le havre fleet can be sprung, allowing an invasion of ireland.

----------------------- alternate scenario ---------------------

if GB moves *last* - france does teh same thing, usually starting at antwerp or amsterdam instead, and simply parks his ships in a british BB at the end of the turn (e.g. yarmouth etc) - GB can attackand beat them, but they do a sea area retreat and still invade GB.

this technique is a PAIN for GB to work against, even live and able to make those crucial decisions in person. trying to forestall it by clicking a box is a nightmare.

and that's just france alone - imagine if SP sends just one 30-s fleet.

for GB, the decision of 'will i intercept here, or there -- if i intercept there i am out of position to intercept this other fleet' is so often crucial.

the above can also be pulled with portugal, then sweden in order of priority.

in some cases FR will have to DoW the power that attacked denmark etc to ensure full control of the fleet (depending on how you define controlled minors, a grey area in the rules).

that's just france working with a single minor - with the new system, as far as i can see, a fr-sp or fr-ru alliance is *so* much more of a threat to GB.

am not complaining, not at all - just pointing out what i think will be the absolutely most difficult area to port from the paper game to the computer game.

there are tons of variations on the above - oh, would that i could beta test!!....

:)


[/COLOR]




Chiteng -> (5/30/2003 4:42:59 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoche
[B]Marshall said:

TURKISH FEUDALS have been added to the game and act as normal with the exception that the units (In place of the levy step) can be stood down in December then brought back (To full strength of course) in the January Reinforcement phase. Keep in mind that the feudals can still be stood down at any other reinforcement phase and brought back (At the same strength levels) in any later reinforcement phase.


This concerns me a bit. It is a considerable change from the normal Turkish Feudal corps rules. With the exception of the Dec levy step FC are placed and removed during the land phase. Moving their placement and removal to the reinforcement phase casues some problems. Will a FC placed during a turn's reinfrocement phase be able to move during that turn's land phase? Under the normal rules FC placed during the land phase can't move that turn.

This also prevents France and Russia (who can move before Turkey in the land phase) from being able to move in and prevent the placement of FC. This change in the rules will force other changes in games play that purests like me don't want to see. I think a serious mistake has been made with regards to FC placement.

I don't wish to be so negative. In general I am excited about the game and want it to succed. That is why I am voicing my concerns over this is. [/B][/QUOTE]

If it is a change from the original I agree...I didnt notice that.
That means that the Turks will get hit for support costs.
That is IMPORTANT. Prolly should change it to the original




Reknoy -> (5/30/2003 6:18:54 PM)

Tim:

I have played maybe 30-40 games of EiA -- few of which ever resulted in London burning because of what you described.

Weaker British player or foolish Spanish/Russian players may make for difficulty to Britain -- but imo that's a problem no matter what you do with interception.

I think we let the playtesters see how it goes. According to Marshall we have a "who's who" of EiA players (I'm sure there are also a host of others out there who were not on the list).

These types of things (gross inequities) come out pretty fast in playtesting.

Likewise the "problem" with feudal corps;

Likewise the insurrection corps.

Likewise anything else that anyone is worried about.

Imo if Marshall and the gang work their tails off due to our ranting in the forum, just think what they'll do if the playtesters present a strong case for revisiting interception! Or anything else for that matter.

It's looking good.

Reknoy




timothy_stone -> (5/30/2003 6:32:52 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]Tim:

I have played maybe 30-40 games of EiA -- few of which ever resulted in London burning because of what you described.

Weaker British player or foolish Spanish/Russian players may make for difficulty to Britain -- but imo that's a problem no matter what you do with interception.

Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue]in your 40 games, how many times have you seen such a ploy tried? If your group tends to put the fleets in clumps or in the Med, of course it won't happen. That's not a useful comparison. If you sit down with a pencil and wargame it out though, you'll see how much of a threat it is even with a live defending admiral.

I agree that a hostile Sp or Ru player is a problem, I'm just pointing out that they will be much *more* of a problem without live control of your fleets.

Of course, one of the main strengths of EiA is that it is a 7-player, long game, and that means even if the balance is changed, other players can identify that and adjust accordingly - though i worry that this threatens to be a fairly large balance shift[/COLOR]




pfnognoff -> (5/30/2003 6:58:55 PM)

Problem here is simple, invasion of Britain must be a possibility and a real threat, while on the other hand it must not be made to easy due to lack of "live" interception attempts.

Playtesters should focus on this first.

BTW how will pursuit after naval combat be handled? Who will decide if the loosing fleet returning to port will be pursued after succesfull Interception? AI is never strong enough to make this type of decissions.




Reknoy -> (5/30/2003 7:28:15 PM)

Agree with what Tim and Pfog wrote.

Also agree that playtesters MUST put stress on these types of paradigms (the French/British sparring in the early stages of the game).

That's the key. As France, try like mad to invade Britain.

Turning for a moment on the France/Britain conundrum, I want to share at least some thoughts and one experience over the whole matter.

In answer to Tim's question -- yes, I have seen nearly every type of setup for French fleets (with or without negotiated Spanish support at the outset). Average ship counts, unbalanced counts, all in one port, etc.

One thing that some of the groups I played with did not originally account for, however, was that the British (in fact, any blockading fleet) had to win the blockade box interception battle in order to keep the French in. That realization, of course, changed their tactics even further.

More often than not, however, the French player would lose political points and ships and Britain would grow thinner (and thus subject to attack from Spain/Russia).

So, in more seasoned groups, it boiled down to strategies that were wholly apart from the "norm" (like gathering French fleets in the Med and fleeing to the Dardanelles -- for all sorts of fun purposes).

We still had players that pushed the envelope.

One such French player turned a lot of his attention to invading Britain.

He eventually succeeded (with the help of Spain) in landing on England. If you've tried it, you usually think you've won the war once you've landed.

Anyway, London was defended for a few months (after all, France had to have some defense against the Prussian/Austria). If you keep all the British troops at home, you would be amazed at how well they hold out and how England is positioned (with cities in the north that can raise corps to guard Edinburgh) to defend itself once it's been attacked.

All the while Austria, Prussia and Russia sat by.

The British player did not however (as most do) surrender. He kept holding out and won one land combat over London that was spectacular. That morale and the fact that there were not a ton (only 25) French in the battle saved his behind. But again, that goes with invading Britain mostly.

Ultimately France had a decent force in England. London was under French control and all of England was close to falling.

Then the other allies came.

With Ireland still open, Britain clung to life. Britain was not helpless on the seas and once the French made their fateful landing there was a lot of French blood on the sea. (Spanish, too, for that matter).

France was ill prepared for a defense of the homeland and was severely beaten. Britain gained so many PPs from the numerous battles with Nelson that he was deep in the Dominant Zone.

Granted there are extremes at work here --- but the whole notion that the game is over if France gets to land the I corps in England is incorrect, imo.

How many times does France surrender in the "First War" (1805-1806)? Most of the time if the allies are any good.

When France devotes more attention to Britain, and unless the British player is weak in the knees, France has always surrendered and always gets taken out of England (in my experience).

By the way, I was once the British player with weak knees. In my second game ever I was Britain (bad idea). I declared war on Denmark and Sweden in the same month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember -- second game!! :)

I'm not sure I even need to go into the rest. I surrendered.

The game went awry after that. France had his come-uppance, but it wasn't the same.

Cheers,

Reknoy




timothy_stone -> (5/30/2003 7:39:55 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]

In answer to Tim's question -- yes, I have seen nearly every type of setup for French fleets (with or without negotiated Spanish support at the outset). Average ship counts, unbalanced counts, all in one port, etc.

One thing that some of the groups I played with did not originally account for, however, was that the British (in fact, any blockading fleet) had to win the blockade box interception battle in order to keep the French in. That realization, of course, changed their tactics even further.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue] having seen similar setups is not enough - you have to be playing people who know how to play.....

:)

I agree that france does not automatically win once he gets ashore, and a game is *much* more interesting when britain is willing to bite the bullet and try to hang in there. but barring ridiculous luck, davout and 40 factors are going to take a huge time to pry out of london.

that means that GB gets no cash, builds little/no infantry and loses 3 pps a quarter - and none of the allies get trade, etc etc - all of which is a great strategic long-term advantage for france.

but as i've said earlier, with 7 players you can always adapt.

[/COLOR]




Wynter -> Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of this??? (5/30/2003 7:52:18 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
How familiar are you with the game?[/QUOTE]

LOL!!! Very familiar I should say :D

Both your scenario's take into account the British declaring war on Denmark of Portugal. In most of the games I played, the British commander is wise enough to take very good care on when he declares war on Denmark or Portugal.
Most novice players madly scramble to gain control of the available minors, but that is not the way to go with Britain.

Let me give you an example ;)
In the PBEM game I'm gamemastering atm, we are now May 1806 and still Denmark AND Portugal are uncontrolled minor countries. You see, we have played for a year-and-a-half and there was no opportunity for Britain to declare war on any of the two minors because the possibility that France gained control of any of those fleets would spell disaster for Britain.

Jeroen.




Wynter -> Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of this??? (5/30/2003 7:54:03 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timothy_stone
...if GB moves *last*...[/QUOTE]

Oh, and by the way, the game will use sim-movement. There is no 'move first' or 'move last'.

Jeroen.




timothy_stone -> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of this??? (5/30/2003 8:05:03 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter
[B]LOL!!! Very familiar I should say :D

Both your scenario's take into account the British declaring war on Denmark of Portugal.

Jeroen. [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue]just checking - some of the folks posting are enthusiasts but don't always know the rules, etc .

and no, i am not assuming a GB DoW, any DoW of the three naval minors can do it, if FR gets control because FR can immediately DoW in support of that minor, thus getting 'full' control (as i mentioned above).

and yes, as GB I will usually threaten others most vilely to not attack said minors until later, but again, FR gains economically in comparison (and RU and Sp are not always obliging)

:) these issues are why i love this game

tim

p.s. to your comment that the naval phase will be simultaneous, then it is even harder for GB - because in the above denmark case, by the time nelson has reached the hamburg SZ to try to stop the danes, the danes have run around england and sprung the brest fleet free... etc

how will simult move affect the AH rules of each fleet can move 7 MP as long as none moves twice?

(imo a difficult rule since it allows 'unrealistic' ploys like the one outlined above)

is it simult as in your turn and my turn are done at the same time, or is it simult as in all my fleets must move in the same 7 phases

if hte latter, then that particular tactic described above is not applicable



[/COLOR]




pfnognoff -> (5/30/2003 8:12:21 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]One such French player turned a lot of his attention to invading Britain.

He eventually succeeded (with the help of Spain) in landing on England. If you've tried it, you usually think you've won the war once you've landed.

Anyway, London was defended for a few months (after all, France had to have some defense against the Prussian/Austria). If you keep all the British troops at home, you would be amazed at how well they hold out and how England is positioned (with cities in the north that can raise corps to guard Edinburgh) to defend itself once it's been attacked.

All the while Austria, Prussia and Russia sat by.

The British player did not however (as most do) surrender. He kept holding out and won one land combat over London that was spectacular. That morale and the fact that there were not a ton (only 25) French in the battle saved his behind. But again, that goes with invading Britain mostly.

Ultimately France had a decent force in England. London was under French control and all of England was close to falling.

Then the other allies came.

With Ireland still open, Britain clung to life. Britain was not helpless on the seas and once the French made their fateful landing there was a lot of French blood on the sea. (Spanish, too, for that matter).

France was ill prepared for a defense of the homeland and was severely beaten. Britain gained so many PPs from the numerous battles with Nelson that he was deep in the Dominant Zone.[/B][/QUOTE]

Nice game!

[QUOTE][B]How many times does France surrender in the "First War" (1805-1806)? Most of the time if the allies are any good.

When France devotes more attention to Britain, and unless the British player is weak in the knees, France has always surrendered and always gets taken out of England (in my experience).[/B][/QUOTE]

In games I was in, it was the quallity of the French player, and the state of his "knees", that usually determined the winner of the first war. It also falls down on diplomacy deals alot.

[QUOTE][B]By the way, I was once the British player with weak knees. In my second game ever I was Britain (bad idea). I declared war on Denmark and Sweden in the same month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/B][/QUOTE]

Making those two declarations in the same month is a result of "overestimated strength of knees sindrome". ;)
But, seriously, Britain should be active at start and be able to take some manpower rich minors to boost his infantry production. If the interception is handled wrong in the PC version, Britain would be forced to stay home and win the land battle. And as you correctlly say it favours the other allies.




Reknoy -> (5/30/2003 8:31:29 PM)

I think this is crux -- can Britain acquire a minor in 1805 in the beta?

I think, generally, a competent group of players can shepherd even a good British player into leaving the minor alone for the year.

However, a good British player should be able to take something in 1805. It might/should be tough (no leader and a preponderance of fleets needed to defend the homeland) but not impossible.

Testers should test these paradigms (Britain conquering minors in 1805; Turkey trying to form the Ottoman in 1805 or at any time; Spain trying to form the Ottoman; Prussia forming Poland and how long that can be held; the allies ability to successfully contain France in 1805) and all sorts of others.




Reknoy -> (5/30/2003 8:40:19 PM)

By the way -- to your compliment of the game, that goes to Eric Falk. Arguably the best player of the game I ever met. Legally blind, he listens to the rules on tape. He even outpicks the goofs that pick randomly. He wins the most improbable battles.

One example -- the French are being cute by occupying the island next to Copenhagen (to act as a piece of the chain link to get across the Denmark straits). Ultimately France amasses a large army to cross the straits and they get to that same island (some are able to move into Copenhagen).

Britain takes Copenhagen back with Wellington and freezes the larger army on the island. Not waiting for support, Wellington crosses the strait in the next month and attacks the French on the island -- truly a "live or die" scenario as Davout is leading the French (it's a 15 on 50 battle). The French break with one British guard left standing!! Davout and a huge army went to London in chains. It was awesome.

Sometimes I would just be his assistant for a game and would describe the board to him. The problem in having another player describe the board is that they would (unintentionally I'm sure) leave out little details that make the difference sometimes. Further, they could not catch things that I might and then pass on to him (like, no corps is in 3 spaces of your capital...anything).

Anyway, he won't be as able to play this game. The one tragedy that mars my insane joy at the arrival of this game.

Cheers to you, Eric the Great!

Reknoy




denisonh -> Re: What do you think of this??? (5/30/2003 10:18:05 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Hey guys:

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions??? [/B][/QUOTE]

A good start.




Von Rom -> Re: No, On more detailed release dates! (5/31/2003 11:45:28 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Hey guys:

I wish I could say tommorrow ... but I can't ... my wife wishes I could say today ... but I can't :-)

The fact that we're playtesting is a good thing. It will helps us give a more detailed timeline for release BUT it could delay things further since it can also expose major design issues (Which are better found by the playtesters). These guys are what Matrix has picked to be hardcore EIA guys (A crowd that could surely scare a grizzly bear until they're happy:-)) I've got my work cut out for me and only hope to survive it! The benefit to this is that you will have a finely tuned and tested EIA game (maybe at the expense of a little time)!

Sorry for the rambling but to summarize:

No, We have no more detailed release info other than Summer 2003. [/B][/QUOTE]

Marshall: So glad to hear that you are taking this approach. While I would like to play the game soon, I am more than willing to wait while the game is tweaked, tuned and put through its paces.

Quality will win out over speed any day of the week. :)

Beta Testers: Go to it guys. This will be the only game of its type on the market. Give it everything you've got. We are looking forward to having a great Napoleonic game :)




Von Rom -> Re: What do you think of this??? (5/31/2003 11:53:10 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Hey guys:

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions??? [/B][/QUOTE]

With a Fog of War option turned on, then possible choices might be:

1) Intercept Weaker Force

2) Intercept if equal

3) Intercept If Transports Present

4) Intercept ALL

Again, without perfect knowledge (FoW), these conditions may or may not be present.

BTW, will Admiral skills be relevant in the game? If so, then the quality of your Admiral may be important in deciding on an option to use.

Historically, the French fleet commanded by Villeneuve refused to engage the British (he wouldn't leave port) no matter how many times Napoleon ordered him to do so.




Rafel -> (6/1/2003 5:12:04 AM)

I think that the options have to be differents to british fleets than the rest of fleets, just because the brits where in sea more offensive than french, spanish, dannish, etc..., This was possible for the better trained and the better ships, with more maneouvarility and more fire power and precission.
In the game it's represented by +1 at interception and combat, and in the IA it maybe:

1.- attack fleets with transport
2.- attack all (but not a difference 1:2 or more)

The rest of nations can be how you have said before.

About Trafalgar and french caoutios Villeneuve: The spanish didn't want go out of port, because they know the superiority of Brits ships, but following the orders of Villenueve, admiral of the combined fleet, and the orders of Napoleon they go out, but among the frech ships, such a french ship, spanish ship, french ship, ...
Gravina, one of the best admirals of this age, killed in Trafalgar, always says that go out was a madness, but the orders of incompetent spanish politicians, admirals as Villenueve and Napoleon were more strongs than Gravina and his staff opinion.




Von Rom -> (6/1/2003 10:16:15 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rafel
[B]I think that the options have to be differents to british fleets than the rest of fleets, just because the brits where in sea more offensive than french, spanish, dannish, etc..., This was possible for the better trained and the better ships, with more maneouvarility and more fire power and precission.
In the game it's represented by +1 at interception and combat, and in the IA it maybe:

1.- attack fleets with transport
2.- attack all (but not a difference 1:2 or more)

The rest of nations can be how you have said before.

About Trafalgar and french caoutios Villeneuve: The spanish didn't want go out of port, because they know the superiority of Brits ships, but following the orders of Villenueve, admiral of the combined fleet, and the orders of Napoleon they go out, but among the frech ships, such a french ship, spanish ship, french ship, ...
Gravina, one of the best admirals of this age, killed in Trafalgar, always says that go out was a madness, but the orders of incompetent spanish politicians, admirals as Villenueve and Napoleon were more strongs than Gravina and his staff opinion. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree. I think crew and Admiral quality may be a larger factor than just ship numbers. Morale, discipline, training and courage will be big factors in deciding a ship engagement.

How can these factors best be represented?




Rafel -> (6/3/2003 1:06:26 AM)

At the advanced naval rules of EiA, I think it's quite good represented, with british morale at 4 and the rest at 3, 25% more morale than the others normal countries, Austria, Prussia, and other, like could be Poland, with morale at 2, countries without naval tradition or with very old ships and bad trainings (North African countries?). It's just a proposal.




Yorlum -> Ships, number, etc (6/3/2003 1:26:12 AM)

It seems to me that part of the British numerical advantage has to be based upon quality as well.

The rules say that ships equate to a ship of the line 'or a force of ships of approximately equal power'.

The British navy was not so much larger that it gets twice as many ships as France, so why should it get 100, v 49 for the Frogs?

Simple! It takes more French hulls to equate to one game 'ship'.




baboune -> (6/3/2003 2:54:08 AM)

Actually, I think that the strength of the French Navy was close to 39 ships. Obviously, we are talking of major war ships and not all sizes of ships. I do not know the exact term for this type of boat. I think they were called "ships of the line".

Trafalgar was a major reason for this decrease in ships.

Interesting link:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~glover/france.html




baboune -> (6/3/2003 2:55:17 AM)

Stupid of me I meant close to 49...




baboune -> (6/3/2003 2:57:20 AM)

The numbers did vary a lot...
apparently down to 35 in 1807, back to 71 in 1817...
Good ships bad admirals.




baboune -> (6/3/2003 3:03:38 AM)

As to bonuses for the english fleet, NELSON as a naval leader gives extraordinary advantages to the british fleet. Particularly when using the Advanced Naval rules.

12.2.7 Nelson: The basic rules of EIA resolve Nelson's chances of becoming a battle casualty as though he were a land officer. In actual fact, Nelson was noted for risking his life to ensure that his command acted according to his sometimes daring plans. He typically led the attack in his flag ship, having it attract and absorb the brunt of the initial enemy broadsides. He was, consequently, wounded several times and ultimately died leading the attack on Trafalgar. Much of this risk can be traced to Nelson's use of the melee tactic. The following allows a fleet commanded by Nelson to improve chances closing with the enemy in a melee, but with a corresponding increase in the risk of him becoming a casualty.

12.2.7.1 This rule modifies rule 12.2.7 to reflect the higher rate of naval officer casualties during this period. Instead of a casualty occurring only with a dice roll of 12, it now also occurs with a roll of 11.

12.2.7.2 If Optional rule 12.2.6.2 is used, and a stack of British fleets (only) commanded by Nelson has melee selected as its tactical chit by the controlling player, the number by which the player modifies the roll is also used to modify the casualty dice roll. The second roll to determine whether Nelson is wounded or killed is not modified.

Basically the english can not miss an arrival on Melee!




soapyfrog -> (6/3/2003 6:31:39 AM)

Well, the maximum bonus for the melee chit Nelson can give is +2. Given that vs Linear Defence a successfull melee requires a 3 or less on the 2nd or 3rd round, Nelson can still fail to close if he rolls a 6.

I have personally experienced this, suffering an ignominius defeat against a linear defending Swedish fleet!

P.S. Baboune start digging graves for your Prussians... ;)




Chiteng -> (6/3/2003 6:34:21 AM)

The game is won or lost on land. Invading England isnt that
important. Even if you win, so what? beating England DOESNT
win the game. Although it would be nice England off its high horse.




soapyfrog -> (6/3/2003 9:06:11 AM)

Oh and BTW Trafalger was in October 1805, so the French strength at the start of the campaign is their pre-Trafalger strength.

The French lost many ships during the revolutionary period due to both combat and poor maintenance.




pfnognoff -> (6/3/2003 2:14:29 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]The game is won or lost on land. Invading England isnt that
important. Even if you win, so what? beating England DOESNT
win the game. Although it would be nice England off its high horse. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, taking some money away from the coalition, does make life easier for France. On the continent, also, because Austria & Prussia depend on Britain.
You can also disband some of the British semi-guard infantry factors, or take a province or two, making recovery from this defeat quite dificult.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.46875