RE: Play as the USA (Full Version)

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



Message

vonpaul -> RE: Play as the USA (10/1/2004 5:17:38 AM)

cant use Cossacks to create depots in enemy territory.

7.2.3.3.2: For a major power to place a new depot outside of its own territory, an unbesieged corps of that major power must be in that area.



yammahoper -> RE: Play as the USA (10/1/2004 5:51:18 PM)

My memory must be foggy...cossaks and Au freecorp are not considered corps?

Ah, one of the glorys of having this game on PC...no more arguements about rules, lol.

Chargrinned,
Yamma



1LTRambo -> RE: Play as the USA (10/1/2004 7:43:15 PM)

Exactly[;)]



Forward_March -> RE: Play as the USA (10/2/2004 12:22:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forward_March
Then, the good Ole US of A. That'd be just too much of a good thing. A powerful nation untouchable by anyone...even Britain.


Ummm......I am all patriotic and proud of my nation and all but we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812 and the British were not even taking our theater seriously. If we had not managed a bluff at the fortifications of Baltimore the war would have ended with us being returned to the Crown and Madison swinging from the gallows. As it was we were lucky to be returned to the status quo (New Orleans was won AFTER the peace don't forget).


What you forget is that just like during the Revolutionary war, the Brits could win battles, but wherever their army wasn't, the Americans could do what they pleased. Even if the American army had lost every regular battle it might have been in, the British would have suffered worse than the French did while in spain. You can't crush powerful nationalism with an army that can't control the countryside. Of course, examples of that can even be seen today if you watch the news...though Islamic fundamentalism or anarchism is the case now.



Windfire -> RE: Play as the USA (10/2/2004 3:48:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forward_March
Then, the good Ole US of A. That'd be just too much of a good thing. A powerful nation untouchable by anyone...even Britain.


Ummm......I am all patriotic and proud of my nation and all but we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812 and the British were not even taking our theater seriously. If we had not managed a bluff at the fortifications of Baltimore the war would have ended with us being returned to the Crown and Madison swinging from the gallows. As it was we were lucky to be returned to the status quo (New Orleans was won AFTER the peace don't forget).


What you forget is that just like during the Revolutionary war, the Brits could win battles, but wherever their army wasn't, the Americans could do what they pleased. Even if the American army had lost every regular battle it might have been in, the British would have suffered worse than the French did while in spain. You can't crush powerful nationalism with an army that can't control the countryside. Of course, examples of that can even be seen today if you watch the news...though Islamic fundamentalism or anarchism is the case now.


My take is the same. They Brits could win battles, but they would have been unable to conquer the country. Not very different from the revolutionary war with the same outcome where they would have eventually had enough and agreed to end the war.



Pippin -> RE: Play as the USA (10/2/2004 6:12:04 AM)

A few things worry me about adding more players to the game.

One major complaint I keep hearing over and over is that there are already too many players (7) to this game, and how long things take to complete a game. Assume, you find enough for a game, then more chances for game to be dropped due to dropping out members, etc.

But there are some other issues here as well. Such as play balance. How will this change things? Will a bid system be enough to keep it balanced? If I am Britain, then I will feel sorry for the poor bastard who has to be stuck with Sweden. I’ll gladly give them a royal ass kicking from one end of their country to another. Then to make things worse, I sense there is going to be a lot of other players who will not be able to resist in joining into the pillaging and freebies.

I’ll spend a lot of time raping the easy points from one side, while everyone else is on the other doing the same. And 1/3 of all my points I gain from her will be automatically spent on withdrawing an equal amount from the French. Those French are going to be so damn mad, hehe, that they will be screaming for all her allies to wipe Sweden off the map just to stop all the point stealing.

Well, maybe not…. But we shall see.



Forward_March -> RE: Play as the USA (10/2/2004 10:08:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

A few things worry me about adding more players to the game.

One major complaint I keep hearing over and over is that there are already too many players (7) to this game, and how long things take to complete a game. Assume, you find enough for a game, then more chances for game to be dropped due to dropping out members, etc.



I imagine, dear Pippin, that we'll have to find one or two hardcore players (guys that try really hard (despite non-wargame loving spouses) to whip out a turn a day per game, and let the AI do the rest once we see which guys can't keep up a pace to keep the game interesting. Nothing worse to me than to create a strategy then lose your train of thought because you haven't had a turn in 2 weeks.

Actually...now that I think on it, it might be cool. Gain allies and then see what happens when their incompetent (AI) leaders foil your best strategy. That sounds like the Napoleonic wars in a nutshell;)

Make that AI strong, Marshall...Please



shanebosky -> RE: Play as the USA (10/2/2004 6:24:18 PM)

Maybe as a start Matrix could release a version with Sweden and particularly America as Uncontrolled Major Powers. They are definitely more powerful than the usual minor, and can exert far more influence on European matters than others, but Sweden is just not powerful enough to really contend, while America is too much on the periphery and probably just weak enough to make it only feasible to fght a defensive war (a la 1812), or prehaps a minor offensive (a la Barbary Wars) against Spain or Turkey. I agree with Pippin about the detriments of player control, but I absolutely think Sweden and America should have more presence in the game.



Pippin -> RE: Play as the USA (10/2/2004 11:11:52 PM)

This is giving me flashbacks of Axis&Allies. Normally the bid is for extra Axis units. Then one day someone came up with the bright idea of letting Russia be controlled by the AI, so that a 2 player game results in really only 2 countries per player under control.

However, it was found out pretty quick that the allies are the ones who need the bid advantage that game, and a high one at that! Reason being the AI performs so stupidly, that you could place an inf next to Russia, yet Russia garrisons Karelia and leaves its capitol wide open! This sure has caused a lot of screaming by the poor unfortunate sole who decided to take the allied side that game. Lesson learned the HARD way.

Right, well I do have a habit of talking about A&A far too much still…



YohanTM2 -> RE: Play as the USA (10/3/2004 1:56:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

A few things worry me about adding more players to the game.

One major complaint I keep hearing over and over is that there are already too many players (7) to this game, and how long things take to complete a game. Assume, you find enough for a game, then more chances for game to be dropped due to dropping out members, etc.



I imagine, dear Pippin, that we'll have to find one or two hardcore players (guys that try really hard (despite non-wargame loving spouses) to whip out a turn a day per game, and let the AI do the rest once we see which guys can't keep up a pace to keep the game interesting. Nothing worse to me than to create a strategy then lose your train of thought because you haven't had a turn in 2 weeks.

Actually...now that I think on it, it might be cool. Gain allies and then see what happens when their incompetent (AI) leaders foil your best strategy. That sounds like the Napoleonic wars in a nutshell;)

Make that AI strong, Marshall...Please


Having played some larger multi-player formats I can't agree. There is nothing worse than investing months in a game and then have your ally go AI while the other guys stomp your butt. I have been on both sides of this and frankly even when it is their key ally that goes AI it still sucks.



cbpraem -> RE: Play as the USA (10/3/2004 7:48:43 PM)

Sweden as a Mayor - i've actually tried playing this puny country in a variation 1792 senario. Let me tell you it is not fun.[:(]
We upgraded its army to consist of 6 corps and she had 2 leaders of some value (1792 has very few leaders and all but the French (several), Austrians (Charles) and Russia (Suvarov?) have bad leaders). We allso gave her 2 fleets.

Despite all the tweeks, Sweden is not a mayor power - ad best she is a mayor minor.
Due to the political climate i was able to avoid serius harm, but much of this was based on the other players will to keep me in game. Sweden is the weekest of the powers, and due to its isolated position at the merci of Russia and Great Brittain. No allies can come to its aid at home against a Brittain with naval supiriority, except maybe Russia via Finland.

In short - if you injoy playing a game of diplomacy with no diplomatic muscle or power on the field of battle, by all means play Sweden. But the only way to make Sweden a nation woth playing, is to make the game hugely unrealistic.



peskpesk -> Play Sweden (10/4/2004 8:45:26 AM)

I think your opinion about playing Sweden not fun is suprising.
We had the best game ever with Sweden in the game! [:)].
Did you realy use the EiH Map? I think Sweden is a big challenge, but
very fun to play. With smart diplomacy and growing power on the battle field
Sweden can do alot. Russians had a chock when Sweden and GB declared war
and took St Petersburg with ease.

But I also think Sweden shall be a OPTION. Free for every one to choose to play with
or without!



megalomania2003 -> RE: Play Sweden (10/4/2004 11:32:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
Did you realy use the EiH Map? I think Sweden is a big challenge, but
very fun to play. With smart diplomacy and growing power on the battle field

Growing power compared to whom? And for smart diplomacy you have to have something to offer others, and in my opinion Sweden cannot compete for long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
Russians had a chock when Sweden and GB declared war
and took St Petersburg with ease.

Sure can be done against an unprepared Russia (by GB alone if necessary) but they should not be able to hold it for very long.



peskpesk -> RE: Play Sweden (10/4/2004 1:37:04 PM)

quote:

Growing power compared to whom?

Actually compared to all! During the game Sweden’s forces grow with the highest % of all)

I guess it also depends on which Swedish rules you use. I or II, see this link http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=723368

Here is a summery of the game:
1805: A successful deal with GB, made the position safe. The Russians did not dear to attack.
1806: The French tried to take Pommern, but was not able to hold it since their troops was needed else where.

1806: Splitting Denmark/Norway with GB.

1807:Wait

1808: Then GB & Sweden attack Russia how was in a Turkish campaign at the moment. St Petersburg fell and The Russians made peace.

Still Sweden had only taken 10I losses during first three years.

1809: A minor war with Prussia ended with a case fire.

1810-1811: The first anti France campaign, during which Sweden took Netherlands, but had to let it go when the Russians attacked. Alone Sweden faced the Russian juggernaut and prevailed. Swaborg never fell and the Russian invasion was thrown out after heavy fighting. And a white peace was signed.

1813 The end of Prussian, Sweden, France and Russia split the Germans between them self.

1814 The GB Backstab, The traitors took Stockholm during a surprise attack. Sweden sided Norway to England.



megalomania2003 -> RE: Play Sweden (10/4/2004 1:53:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
Actually compared to all! During the game Sweden’s forces grow with the highest % of all)

But considering how few they start with does it really say that much (compared to the numerical increase in other countries and what they can field in their corps).

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
1808: Then GB & Sweden attack Russia how was in a Turkish campaign at the moment. St Petersburg fell and The Russians made peace.

If the Russian ever leave St. Petersburg unguarded or do not have troops to recapture it they are asking for something like this (unless they have a really strong alliance with GB - which was the real attacker in this game)



cbpraem -> RE: Play Sweden (10/4/2004 5:51:49 PM)

We played a boardgame version of EiA with some house-rule changes to Sweden including a splitting Sweden in more provinces. We did not use the EiH map.

The sweden-rules we played with was a crossover betwen a oficial variation from "The General", a unoficial unplaytested version i found some place on the net and a debate with my co-players on historical relevance and playability (we was a group of 8 including 5 historians, one of them with speciality in th Napolionic age).
The end result was an army wich corp for corp was only second to France and Prussia. Again remember it was a 1792 variantion, where all Austrian corps are 10i, 1c and all minors have 8i,2c - my total army capacity was an unhistorical high of 52 factors as i recall, while Brittain could field 68 and Russia 144. The numbers seep for themselves.

If MG incorporate a playable Sweden, I would expect it to be identical to the minor of the standard rules, and that would ounly make it even more dificult to make an impact on the game as a separate power...

The game was spend in a aliance with GB and Russia for the most part, and i did manage to gain Norway in a deal with GB - the problem was i could not offer anything wothwhile to the aliance, and had nothing to offer or gain from an aliance with anyone ells - France would be unable to help me against GB or Russia, and conequently i was in fact in the mercy of said countries.

Off course a gameexperience is allways subjective, and i wouldnt mind some one ells playing Sweden, but i would rather play as any of the other countries.



yammahoper -> RE: Play Sweden (10/4/2004 11:46:45 PM)

Sweden is simply worth to much to Ru, Pr and GB to leave in the game. GB gains more with Swedish manpower and all the nations can use a fleet and good corps.

As for America...this is a game, not life, and an alliance to take out the States would soon form. Ru, Sp and GB could gain a lot in the war, and do so with little danger from Fr. Shoot, even the Fr may make the first move, hoping to move early before GB can do anything about them and gain a lot of extra manpower and money. I have never met a soul who cared two wits in the end about historical accuracies or other nonsense when put up against making a move to help WIN the game.

A bigger game could be nice, but it certainly would change the entire game, and I cannot say if it would be for the better. Besides, all these outside nations are far to weak to survive long in a game like EiA, where weakness guarantees the strong will declare war, with no other reason than they are weak and easy pp/vp points.

yamma



Pippin -> RE: Play Sweden (10/5/2004 3:04:10 AM)

I do see somewhat of an advantage for Spain if Sweden exists. Spain isn’t considered the joke of the game anymore. The guy who chooses (or is forced) to play her, will also have a feeling of being stronger than he really is. Perhaps it would be valid, considering an extra weak enemy for everyone else to pick on instead.



Forward_March -> RE: Play as the USA (10/6/2004 9:55:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cbpraem

Despite all the tweeks, Sweden is not a mayor power - ad best she is a mayor minor.
Due to the political climate i was able to avoid serius harm, but much of this was based on the other players will to keep me in game.


I'm guessing you and your mates are in some place like Gotenhafen?



hlj -> RE: Play as the USA (10/6/2004 7:47:31 PM)

Sweden as a player nation is a laugh.

If I ever were to start up a game with sweden as a player nation, I would try to get to play GB or Russia, as I wouldn't want to be left out of the free pp up north ^_~

It doesnt matter if the swedish army grows fast, as it will never reach max. And after the first year at the most, it is down to the sweden province or completely eliminated.

I am sure GB, russa and Prussia could come to an agreement where Pomerania becomes Prussian, Finland becomes russian, and Sweden becomes either Russian or British, depending on luck or diplomatic skills of the players.

It would be a terrible country to give a new player, as he would leave the table without a nation after 1-3 years game time at the most (if either GB or russia decide they want him around). And he would have learned nothing exept surrendering, and that sweden, with its central position just between russia and GB, isn't strong enough to be a player nation.

HLJ



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.046875