(Full Version)

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



Message

Chiteng -> (6/26/2003 9:23:46 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B]By reducing the French army to flaming wreckage and sitting on Paris.

And if Austria, Prussia and Russia get all their corps together they can move in two stacks and the attrition will still be too much for France. [/B][/QUOTE]


I dont know....+2 on his die roll and -2 on yours kinda hurts.



soapyfrog -> (6/26/2003 10:33:58 PM)

Ah *I* see the problem... ;)

You can't modify your combat dice by more than +/- 1.

+2/-2 that would be NICE!!! :D



Supervisor -> (6/26/2003 10:38:05 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]It is a good point to raise...if you use the command control
rules and you stack the Austrians and Prussians and Russians
in one spot.....Your command structure will suck.
However...you will inflict a great many losses on the French.

I dont see how you will win, however. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think I have ever played an EiA game without that option. Stacking not only allows you to utilize Prussian cav with Austrain Inf with GB morale mixed in, but also to reduce the amount of PP lost and maximize the amount of PP won. This is a wonderful option for the coalition. So, when France wins, say there is a stack with 2 GB Corps, 2 Au corps and 2 Pr corps, then France wins 3 PP and Gb loses 1, Au loses 1, and Pr loses 1. On the other hand if France loses a battle and has 6 corps present, then France loses 3 PP, and GB wins 3, Pr wins 3, Au wins 3. The game is about one simple fact: Victory points via Political Points. Using this stacking allows Au, Pr, and GB to lose more battles than France yet be able to stay out of the instability zone. I love this rule. Makes things difficult for the French.



soapyfrog -> (6/26/2003 10:43:11 PM)

Absolutely you hit the nail on the head... combined stacks are vital to fight France.



DodgyDave -> (6/27/2003 4:56:08 PM)

I have to disagree here, it can be sorted in a simple way, simply limit how many corps you can have in a spot and only allow reinforcement to add over it.

Solution means, you can have 4 corps, even without a leader there in each sector, but if you got a good leader like Napoleon or someone else, who have a corps rating of 5 or 6, then can they control that many in a sector, because they got the command staff to support it.

What this means, is that France have Napoleon with 6 corps and can be reinforced by another 4 or so, depending on what he plans, but since France will be rather limited in number of armies (i call 2 to 4 corps in the same place that) then do he have to make use of those good corps and leaders.

Stack wars will not be needed, because now Prussia will become more powerful on its own, those lovely corps with 3 cav each, will suddenly even without leaders be alot, 12 cav same sector from 4 corps, take France, 4 corps will only match Prussia and Prussia have 2 armies of this and with rest, perhaps Saxen, they can have a third army, vs France´s 5 to 6 armies.

Now you add Austria, it also have 4 armies, while not as heavy on cav, they can use their cav corps to generally end up in a fight of leaders, but total does the alliance have up to 1 army of 4 corps more then france do, if england get involved, then will it be harder for france.

This will eliminate the stack monster problem, which i see as a problem, first year france wiped out, well game over, lets begin a new game, have become very annoying to play.

So just a control over how many corps can be used per sector and on how many a leader can control would be nice and help game alot.



Chiteng -> (6/27/2003 9:07:51 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DodgyDave
[B]I have to disagree here, it can be sorted in a simple way, simply limit how many corps you can have in a spot and only allow reinforcement to add over it.

Solution means, you can have 4 corps, even without a leader there in each sector, but if you got a good leader like Napoleon or someone else, who have a corps rating of 5 or 6, then can they control that many in a sector, because they got the command staff to support it.

What this means, is that France have Napoleon with 6 corps and can be reinforced by another 4 or so, depending on what he plans, but since France will be rather limited in number of armies (i call 2 to 4 corps in the same place that) then do he have to make use of those good corps and leaders.

Stack wars will not be needed, because now Prussia will become more powerful on its own, those lovely corps with 3 cav each, will suddenly even without leaders be alot, 12 cav same sector from 4 corps, take France, 4 corps will only match Prussia and Prussia have 2 armies of this and with rest, perhaps Saxen, they can have a third army, vs France´s 5 to 6 armies.

Now you add Austria, it also have 4 armies, while not as heavy on cav, they can use their cav corps to generally end up in a fight of leaders, but total does the alliance have up to 1 army of 4 corps more then france do, if england get involved, then will it be harder for france.

This will eliminate the stack monster problem, which i see as a problem, first year france wiped out, well game over, lets begin a new game, have become very annoying to play.

So just a control over how many corps can be used per sector and on how many a leader can control would be nice and help game alot. [/B][/QUOTE]

France can still win w/o Nappy and after a defeat. Your French players were simply spoiled.
It is just HARDER.

In fact in some ways its easier. A well timmed surrender can
leave most of France intact AND preserve its dominance.

Then everyone goes after England.



Khi -> (6/27/2003 10:15:28 PM)

[QUOTE]A well-timed surrender can leave most of France intact AND preserve its dominance.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree. Surrenders are a vital tool in a 'Balance of Power' game. I get the impression that a lot of players are missing out on how to use them. A large part of Empires in Arms is "playing for the NEXT war."



Supervisor -> (6/28/2003 12:43:47 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]France can still win w/o Nappy and after a defeat. Your French players were simply spoiled.
It is just HARDER.

In fact in some ways its easier. A well timmed surrender can
leave most of France intact AND preserve its dominance.

Then everyone goes after England. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Chiteng on this one. I think a well timed early surrender (before France really lets everyone know how many factors they are losing) allows France time to build back up without losing too much and gives France time to use diplomacy to help it's cause. Also, Napoleon is great to have, but the French have so many other great leaders that he is not needed, just preferred, although I would not give up Nap in a surrender unless absolutely necessary. :)



Reknoy -> (6/28/2003 1:13:14 AM)

It is absolutely true that the art of the surrender is as important (if not more) than the art of war in EiA.



J Hutton -> (6/30/2003 1:30:53 PM)

The point first made in this thread was well made, but the discussion has become a wee bit distracted. To repeat the issue: a problem can develop where countries build overly-large armies and garrisons, and these are not historical. This problem does not develop in many games, but it does develop.

Therefore, there should be some mechanism of army maintenance that places limits on manpower. The Matrixgames EIA project, while developing a "true to the original" version of the game, should also expand to improve on the original.

What then should the mechanism be? I like the idea of built-in costs for total factors over and above a certain limit, as proposed earlier. You would have to do calculations as to what a full set of corps contained (including naval) for each nation, and relate this to the manpower value of the country, etc., in some way. It should not be a simple numbers game applicable to everyone.

Has anyone done the maths? Is it part of EIH?

There is also a historical question that would require answering - what in fact were the highest numbers of men under arms in the period? And despite the enormous armies of 1812-13, I have a suspicion that nations placed considerably more manpower into garrison in the home nation, or had it manning supply lines or depots in the field, than is really represented by EIA corp factors and the way EIA tends to be played. Both total army size and historical battlefield numbers would have to be treated with caution, therefore.

Cheers,

John.



DodgyDave -> (6/30/2003 7:19:33 PM)

What you are talking about, happens all the time in our games, even when we do replace players, so we have some newbies playing, why, because combat generally ends when 2 stacks meet and fight a single war, even if there is 6 nations vs france, then if france lose, then can he get away with conditional, why, because it generally mean war is coming to Russia or Turkey and they will go for fast peace as will Spain to avoid being left alone with france.

Problem is that stack wars ends wars, so a limit on how many corps are allowed in each sector is better, as that will give even Prussia and Spain a chance to fight france, even alone and not as now, france stack up vs one of them, with a good leader as well, so he have troops, cav and leader, they have none, but if stacks was just a max of 4 corps (reinforcement is later) then will france suddenly see prussia being more able to fight back, also losing 4 corps is less likely to end war right away, as prussia generally have 2 more stacks.

Using a limit there for will generate more casulties, prolong wars, so more units are killed (desert, wounded) and this will simulate wars better and less build up will be possible.



John Umber -> (7/3/2003 1:21:09 PM)

[SIZE=4]Stack size[/SIZE]

To limit the size of the stack is reducing the game options. To gather all your troops in a huge stack is giving the french a good opporunity to win. With Napoleon using 6 corps, it is very few generals able to stop him. Historicly this is true also. But the other nations never defeated Napoleon one on one. The game is supposed to show this. Please don't stop this in the game rules, or make it an optional rule.

To defeat France, just look at the long border and imagine small armies flooding the border. France must run around like crazy. But remember garrison battles have NO influence on victory points. France has less troops and this is the major weakness of this country. (And many envious neighbours).



DodgyDave -> (7/3/2003 7:46:12 PM)

i have been looking at how the france forces was setup, during their civil war, strangely enough, the biggest force was 130k, spread out in 3 proviences.

There was never any stack wars as you see in this game, we generally see 1 on 1 stack war to ruin the game.

if france wins that one, he have generally won the game, as prussia and austria never recover, as each 18 months, then does France declare war on Prussia and once done, then against Austria, who france have 36 months peace with, so 18 months time to wipe prussia.

Or reverse happens, they defeat france and france never recover.

I would like the an option to include the max 4 corps per land area or up to what leader can control, if that is possible.

This will make Life for Prussia fun, as their corps are made for this and Austria, when he have to fight both Turkey and france.



soapyfrog -> (7/3/2003 8:33:34 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Umber
[B]To defeat France, just look at the long border and imagine small armies flooding the border. France must run around like crazy.[/B][/QUOTE]

This IMHO is a recipe for disaster. France will march around crushing your small armies with overwhelming force while taking few casualties, and eventually the attackers will be left with nothing.

The allies must concentrate as much as possible and head inexorably for the French capital.



DodgyDave -> (7/3/2003 8:38:52 PM)

i agree, but that again is a dissater for the game, france just have to pull a bit back, the allies will not be able to form a big stack even with money as it cost too much to maintain and france jumps them at the right time.

If you on the other hand, limited corps to 4, then will first attack from france be 4 corps (6 if nap is leading them) on the 4 front line corps. (most likely prussian)

This will be more even combat, even thought france have advantage, but more of these armies (4 corps) will enter france, forcing him to consider his tactics, as he cant match Prussia and Austria.

This gives Russia and Turkey new ways to play this game and not just get dragged into mid europa conflict as we tend to get them.

I believe this to be the best way for the game in regards to Prussia and Austria being able to handle france more evenly.



John Umber -> (7/4/2003 2:22:22 AM)

[B]Stacks[/B]

I have seen France launch a stack army towards Berlin and hunting down those last units to prepare for a nice little funeral at the peace table. That army was almost destroyed entirely when a Brittish-Austrian sweep cut them off from France. The army had to split up for forage and then the Russians just took a good bite. It was a peace offer where even Prussia got a little minor country from France. The supply line of a huge stack is it's major weakness. But France did win a lot of battles...

See you



DodgyDave -> (7/4/2003 2:30:48 AM)

thats just the problem my dear friend john, it takes 4 nations to take on france, but why is that?

Austria would be strong enough along with prussia, if you maximum was allowed 4 corps per land area, instead of just unlimited.

are you happy with wars generally only lasting 6 months, 1 big battle and its all over, instead as it was in real life, several smaller battles, except at waterloo, where the french main army lost (not that many troops left), but they did win other smaller battles in itay and germany.

So make my suggestion an option at least, as i prefer a war, where i can do something, as prussia or spain at least. :)



Supervisor -> (7/4/2003 2:46:10 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DodgyDave
[B]thats just the problem my dear friend john, it takes 4 nations to take on france, but why is that?

Austria would be strong enough along with prussia, if you maximum was allowed 4 corps per land area, instead of just unlimited.

are you happy with wars generally only lasting 6 months, 1 big battle and its all over, instead as it was in real life, several smaller battles, except at waterloo, where the french main army lost (not that many troops left), but they did win other smaller battles in itay and germany.

So make my suggestion an option at least, as i prefer a war, where i can do something, as prussia or spain at least. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to disagree due to the fact that France has even a better chance of winning with stack limitations. He has larger corp capacity, better leaders (and lots of them). These two reasons really allow France to dominate big time then.



DodgyDave -> (7/4/2003 2:56:57 AM)

take france to begin with, nice corps, nice leaders, prussia, nice corps, not as good as france, no real leaders, but nice size army, austria, plenti of corps, but not too snappy, better leaders then prussia.

Prussia will be able to field 3 armies of 4 corps, using minors, Austria can field 4 armies i think, without leaders.

But they are limited a bit to begin with, due to troops you start with, but France can also field 4 armies, but with better corps structure.

Still with my suggestion you have france with perhaps napoleon commanding 6 corps due to him being 556 (4 corps nomatter what or up to what leader can control) this is 1 army vs Austria most likely, with charles 6 corps as well.

This leaves france to counter Prussia 3 armies and Austria 3 armies, france got 3 armies left, so he can reduce his armies to 2 corps each, but that will make prussia and austria stronger.

So if Napoleon or Messana wins a battle, they might wipe out an army, but its nolonger 1 battle and war is over, even prussia with 1 army lost got 2 left to fight with.



soapyfrog -> (7/4/2003 4:53:22 AM)

If the Prussians can stack only 4 corps against Napoleon and 6 corps they are dead meat...

Consider:

6 French corps (under Napoleon): I, II, III, IV, Imp. Guard, Arty

Thats 85I, 20G, 12A, 15C (132 factors)

5 Prussian corps (under Blucher): I, II, III, IV, Guard

Thats 60I, 7G, 14C (81 factors)

No contest....

Or lets try:

6 Austrian corps (under Charles): I, II, III, IV, V, I Gren

Thats 75I, 5G, 7C (87 factors)

Still no contest especially considering the sorry lack of cav... put in a cav corps to make up for it and watch your numbers drop to 75. 132 vs 75? Ow.

And considering the French player will be able to crush stack after stack with these odds or better, France will be able to pin himself in the 15 zone by winning repeated battles and the allied force will wither rapidly.

France doesn't need to match the allies stack for stack... if the Allies disperse he can simply roam around in one stack concentrating on crushing each allied stack in turn.

The Allies NEED to be able to field more men per battle in order to offest the French qualitative superiority. If you take the ALlied numbers advantage away from them by preventing them from concentrating you seal their fate forever.



soapyfrog -> (7/4/2003 4:55:35 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DodgyDave
[B]Austria would be strong enough along with prussia, if you maximum was allowed 4 corps per land area, instead of just unlimited.[/B][/QUOTE]
Austria and Prussia ARE strong enough to take on France alone and make an even fight of it.

If you reduce them to 4 corps max (or 6 under Charles) then they are dead meat, no chance at all.



DodgyDave -> (7/4/2003 5:02:20 AM)

well i give up, i will look at the game when it comes out and see what its like.



soapyfrog -> (7/4/2003 5:37:50 AM)

DodgyDave, I am not saying stacking limits are a bad idea neccessarily, it could indeed have a positive effect on the game... but any stacking limit rule must take into account corps density, and the immense advantage the French have thereof.

I suspect a stacking limit rule would have to ignore corps and corps ratings and place a limit on the number of factors modified by overall morale.

Off the top of my head (i.e. there are probably horrible problems with this, not the least of which is bookeeping and enforcement):

Area stacking limit "points"= (forage value * 20) + (commander rating * 10)

troop "point" values
Morale 1 factor = 0.25
Morale 2 factor = 0.5
Morale 3 factor = 1
Morale 4 factor = 1.5
Morale 4.5 or 5 factor = 2
Cav or Art factor = +0.5

So higher morale armies can stack less troops in a given area, allowing you to have quantity vs Quality type competitions.

Exempli Grata:

Napoleon and Charles are facing off at Vienna

Napoleon would be able to stack (5*20)+(5*10) = 150 "points"

So Napoleon could field say 60 infantry (90 points), 10 cavalry (20 points) and 20 guard (40 points) for 90 factors
OR
85 infantry (122.5 points) and 12 cavalry (24 points) for 97 factors
and so on...

Charles would be able to stack (5*20)+(4*10)=140 "points"

He could field say 10 guard (20 points), 15 cavalry (30 points), and 90 infantry (90 points) for 115 factors

Probably instead of preventing people form stacking more factors in an area at any given time you could use this rule to determine the maximum number of factors in an area that may actually participate in a given battle... only corps with combined point total less that the stacking limit could participate. Corps not in the battle could not be used as casualties or add strength, but would be able to reinforce perhaps (?). Pursuit losses could be inflicted on them however, and PP for winning/losing would count all corps in the area whether the contributed or not.

Could work well and would not require much bookeeping except at battle time so the overhead would not be dramatic, and it would limit the usefulness of sending large armies to low forage areas.

I can see some hoels in there but it could be the start of something good.

[B]More:[/B] after casualties are applies each round, you can swap corps that are involved in the battle with those that are not as long the combined total point value of the corps involved does not exceed the stacking limit. Corps not involved at any given time represent your "reserve" during the battle.

Trivial battles... 5:1 ratio for trivial battles would be calculated only using those troops that can be involved in the battle due to the stacking limit.

Possible problems: zero or one forage value areas... like the pripets... could be used to shield large forces from excessive harm. Possibly apply a hard corps stacking limit to those areas due to the excessively bad terrain?



Forward_March -> (7/4/2003 6:50:29 AM)

What some people are missing here are some of the true norms of Napoleonic conflict.

For instance:

1. The French tended to leave far fewer men twiddling their thumbs than their adversaries.

2. Napoleon could command far more men than most of his contemporaries. I think only Charles ever matched him (for size). Which he does incidentally in EiA.

3. Coalitions. That is what it's all about

I think the game should have a stacking limit based on the command span of the individual leaders. Stack wars suck.

and....

one of the great things about EiA was the combat system. A smaller stack could beat a larger if the proper combination of chits were pulled.

...I think I can remember one incident where the Bavarian korps beat off an attack by Massena in open territory. True enough, the Bavarians were gutted, andc the french lost few troops...but it was a funny battle.

...in another, the Swedes under Russia with Bennigsen at their head beat the Brits under Wellington in three consecutive battles.
The Swedes attacked first, and in all three cases chose echelon while the brits chose escalated counter assault. the Swedes were gutted, but held off the brits long enough to allow Russian troops coming from St. Pete to decide the brits to evacuate.
...so much for Pax Britannica.

Some objets de art need no changing



Supervisor -> (7/4/2003 7:53:48 AM)

A smaller stack CAN beat a much larger stack, but not if they are reduced to 0 factors first. I am anti "super stacking", this being 7+ corps. We always played that the strategic and tactical numbers were reduced by 1 every time the leader went over his max, ie. Nap with 1-6, same 5-5-6, Nap with 7-12, 4-4-12, Nap with 13-18, 3-3-18. This helped reduce the amount of people willing to stack, also. You don't have to engage in stack wars, just because your opponent is doing it.

I would be cool with playing in a campaign where the leaders natural limit was the limit, but not with a static (a constant) limit for everyone no matter what.



DodgyDave -> (7/4/2003 7:57:06 AM)

it will hurt nations with few leaders or crappy leaders, thats why i found 4 corps nomatter of leader the best option.



J Hutton -> (7/4/2003 8:23:19 AM)

This talk about limiting stacks is simply not historical. Armies were considerably smaller at the beginning of the period, but not by 1812-13.

The single largest battle of the Napoleonic wars, the point at which France truly "fell", was Leipzig, which became known as the Battle of Nations because of its size and the sheer numbers of troops that took part. France took on a combined army of Sweden, Russia, Austria and Prussia (and some British, if I remember correctly) - in all some 200,000 Frenchmen and allies, against 370,000 enemy troops. The number of cannons involved was also astounding with Napoleon Bonaparte having 700 at his disposal and the Allies up to 1400.

Have a look at:

http://home.germany.net/101-102451/zf/oob/OOB-Leipzig-1813.html

Also:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_029300_leipzigbattl.htm

John.



soapyfrog -> (7/4/2003 9:46:35 AM)

Having a hard corps stacking limit based on leader command limits hands the game lock stock and barrel to the French. I would doubt that even Austria+Prussia+Russia combined could beat France under those circumstances.

For those who doubt we can test it when the computer game is released. Any takers?

My factor/forage-based stacking limit I think would be a much more intelligent way to go, allowing the allies to retain their much needed numerical superiority. I think I shall develop it...



Supervisor -> (7/4/2003 10:55:17 AM)

Unfortunately, to make a game that adheres strictly to historical facts, would be no fun. We know who lost. Not only would it be no fun, but it is also a very complex task, if not impractical. With 4 corps limits, France wins, period. Better leaders to sit on the 4 corps stacks, more number in each stack, etc, etc. With better leaders and more factors in each stack, how would this help?

I disagree with stacking limits and agree with soapyfrog, I would certainly like to see these played out in a game that I played France in. I don't think the allies would stand a chance. Sorry, but that's just what I think, unless it was everyone vs. france, then maybe.



John Umber -> (7/4/2003 3:30:31 PM)

[B]Stacking[/B]

Interresting to use territory forage points to limit the number of troops. The supply chain should effect this aswell. The quality of troops should not decide the number, but type should. Defender should have a advantege of using the area.

The question arise, is EIA a historical game or a social game. Stack reduction beyond the leader rule tends to go towards social games. True, everyone wish to have a good time and a chance of winning everything. Make this an option if possible, but not the actual game. Each terrritory in EIA is large. The space is well enough to bring an unlimited number of soldiers to the area. The question is supply and the original game considered this. Maybe by putting cost of supplychains higher, then the problem might be solved. If it is a problem?

Yours



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625