RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (Full Version)

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



Message

NeverMan -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/8/2004 9:06:50 PM)

If Turkey "easily invaded Russia" then I would count the AI as not even worth spending the time to write it. No one should be able to "easily invade Russia". If that occurs, it is the result of a VERY POOR Russian player, a "child" if you will. Someone who knows nothing of Russia, the time period, the game, or strategy and tactics.

I also tend to agree with pfnognoff that the backstab is a good thing for Russia if done correctly: late in the game 1812, 1813, and when Au and Pr have just finished a war with France, or are currently at war with France.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/9/2004 2:12:02 AM)

Neverman:

Easily was probably a bad term! They never made it to Moscow BUT did get a conditional surrender from Russia since two Feudal Cavalry corps did manage to at least endanger Moscow. Prussia did manage to decimate the majority of the Russian army and left Moscow largley unprotected. Didn't say it was smart BUT interesting never-the-less!

Thank you



jamo262 -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 9:51:30 AM)

There is one rule that Ive never quite been able to get my head around and it really applies to this situation here. THe rule (from memory) goes someting like-

" A major power , already at war with other major powers , cannot declare war on other major powers , if enemy forces are already inside its home territory"

Its not an exact quote but the upshot is that since France is at war with Britain and Russia has troops inside Prussia- one reading of this rule seems to protect Prussia from a French declaration of war as long as those Russian troops are on Prussian soil.

Comments anyone? [&:]



j-s -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 10:45:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamo262

There is one rule that Ive never quite been able to get my head around and it really applies to this situation here. THe rule (from memory) goes someting like-

" A major power , already at war with other major powers , cannot declare war on other major powers , if enemy forces are already inside its home territory"

Its not an exact quote but the upshot is that since France is at war with Britain and Russia has troops inside Prussia- one reading of this rule seems to protect Prussia from a French declaration of war as long as those Russian troops are on Prussian soil.

Comments anyone? [&:]



As long as Prussia is at war with Russia and Russian troops are inside Prussian borders, Prussia can't declare war. France can declare war to Prussia unless France has his enemy troops inside France borders.



eg0master -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 1:36:07 PM)

4.2.2.1 states that a MP cannot declare war on another MP or Minor if the declaring MP does have any ground forces within the "target" country.
4.2.2.2 states that a MP already at war with another MP may not declare war on other MPs if unbesieged enemy infantry corp is already within its home nation.

So there are 2 different things.
As long as France has corps in Prussia - france cannot declare war on prussia regardless of any wars.
And if Prussia and Russia is at war and russia has unbesieged corps in prussia, prussia cannot declare war on any MP.

Actually I remember a few players using 4.2.2.1 in order to enforce a peace. For example russa put one corp in austria and vice versa and hence they could not declare a surprise war without first moving the Corp givving the other player a month's notice on when a war was about to be declared.



fjbn -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 2:47:10 PM)

Anyway, that AI strategy surpises me a lot. I mean. If I had seen rightly the map, you have DOW some minors in Germany and Russia has DOW to you. Itīs nonsense, because these minors are not the main russian objectives. Itīs not Sweden or Poland. These things makes me worry about AI strategic evaluation. Can AI understand that if it doesnīt create a big alliance (GB, Russia, Prussia and Austria), France will win or it only plays with a objective: make the human victory imposible?. Can AI undestand that GB must cover in gold its allies to defeat France?.

Which is the AI base to choose a general to lead an army?, beacuse Tzar election to lead Russian Army is incredible[:-]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 3:39:21 PM)

fjbn:

Need to realize that the AI doesn't have the luxury of the historical knowledge that we humans have. What you mention about the Tzar leading the army sounds incredible to you and I BUT the AI simply thinks that their senior leader (not BEST) is leading an invasion. It's a tricky game to program the AI. Sure we hae done some traditional tables so that the AI players know who their traditional enemies are and who are their best allies. This prevents the old best friends ganging up on everybody else in their "Britain Allies with France move". By nature (before we did our tradition tables) the French AI player would almost always seek to ally with Great Britain.

I've said this before and it is worth mentioning again, the AI will be challenging BUT it will not be to the level of human diplomatic intrigue nor will it act as a experienced EiA player but it will be a cold, calculating, pp hungry ally/enemy that will not always be smart or dumb.

Hope this helps...

thank you



eg0master -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 3:56:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
[...]
I've said this before and it is worth mentioning again, the AI will be challenging BUT it will not be to the level of human diplomatic intrigue nor will it act as a experienced EiA player but it will be a cold, calculating, pp hungry ally/enemy that will not always be smart or dumb.
[...]


Sounds like a guy I used to play EiA with... [:D]



pfnognoff -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 7:42:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fjbn

Which is the AI base to choose a general to lead an army?, beacuse Tzar election to lead Russian Army is incredible[:-]



Absolutely, if a human player is involved, Tzar would be safely put away somewhere beside the board game area, far from reach to be sure you do not place him by mistake. [:D]

But now, if I understood correctly, this little routine is programmed as "mad Russian" AI, so it's more than appropriate to have Tzar leading his brave troopers inta certain doom. AI must have a personality and after some thought on the subject this is starting to sound like a valid one to me. Marshall just needs to make sure that this AI personality doesn't come to the poor "Mother Russia" to often. [:)]

Also, on the subject of Tzar leading armies, I think EiH had the rule that while Russia is at war, Tzar must be given a field command. Of course in our games involving humans this usally meant he was given one militia corps in and arround Kazahstan or Georgia [:D]



Titi -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 7:48:50 PM)

4.2.2.1 says that a major power may not declare war on another major power or neutral minor country if the declaring major power has corps, freikorps, cossacks, garrisson or guerillas within the territory.

So better just leave a step of militia in garrisson rather than a corp in the territory. It's give a longer warning as either you must destroy it in the previous reinforcement phase before declaring a war or move a corp to pick it up an leave the territory. So if it isn't in a border city, it give a one month warning.
Otherwise the french corp inside your border may move last to leave and attack first next turn his former friend.[:-]



Ozie -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 8:44:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

fjbn:

Need to realize that the AI doesn't have the luxury of the historical knowledge that we humans have. What you mention about the Tzar leading the army sounds incredible to you and I BUT the AI simply thinks that their senior leader (not BEST) is leading an invasion.


Marshall

Why do you have to enforce another burden to the AI by not making the BEST leader to lead the army instead of the senior one? It doesn't sound like it would be difficult to implement since it just a diffrent value AI has to compare. (stratecig/tactical instead of seniority) As you said yourself the AI will never be as clever as the human players might be so I don't understand why it needs the extra burden of not using best it has when the players are surely doing so?



fjbn -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 9:34:05 PM)

I agree with you. Can you imagine Brunswick leading Prussia, Mack Austria and the Tzar Russia?. Itīs just a nightmare!. Napo will crush them all, no matter if they join their armies.



rhodopsine -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 9:56:50 PM)

But it's not that historically unaccurate. Lot of armies of that time were given to blood princes and high nobility. If I'm not mistaken, Bruswick was in charge at Jena/Auerstadt, Mack was in charge of the army that was supposed to stall the french army at Ulm and Alexander was on the battlefield at Austerlitz.

Martin Paradis



mattbirra -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 10:01:09 PM)

I think, the IA is only to get used to the game, since i assume all of us have played the board game, could you imagine a Rusian IA attacking Turkey to weak it and just let Austria figth freely against France in a next war, or let Great Britain get the north of Africa, this kind of tricks is only for human brains, NEVER an IA could make a good diplomatic effort...



fjbn -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 10:11:02 PM)

I thinh you are not right in Mack case, simply read OOB in Austerlitz scenario in EiA. You will see that the guard and the main army was in Italy commanded by Charles (in fact, an archiduke, like his brother John). Austria thought that Napo main attack would be directed to Italy, as usual, but Napo changed the plans and made the fastest movilization ever seen. This is the reason why Mack was captured in Ulm.



fjbn -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/10/2004 10:16:08 PM)

More important. If you have to be historicaly acurate, Russia manpower must be much bigger than France, and GB resources bigger, because in 1800 GB collected more money in taxes than France, and the difference was getting bigger with the years.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/11/2004 1:56:10 AM)

Ozie:

This was an odd situation where multiple leaders were in the same area and when this happens, the senior leader takes over (most of the time). I give the AI the option of what, where and who so I cannot completely answer the WHY yet ...

Thank you



John Umber -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/11/2004 9:09:22 AM)

Rules states that the most senior general present at the battle takes command. I suppose this makes the AI send their senior generals to the front...



ktotwf -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/11/2004 1:40:10 PM)

"If you have to be historicaly acurate, Russia manpower must be much bigger than France,"

How so? Russia only had 9 million more people than France. That is not that huge of a difference. France always had an army that was at least twice as large as Russia's during the Napoleonic Era.



fjbn -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/11/2004 2:11:44 PM)

France had about 25 million people in 1800, so if Russia had 9 million more, itīs 34, and maybe more. The ratio 25/34 is worse for France than 30/36, and more important. You can say that France can take manpower fron other countries, but in fact you cannot take a man from Germany, for example, and convert it in a efficient french soldier, because the difference in lenguages make coordination very difficult. This is one of the reasons why Austrian army was not as good as it could be. Officers were basically austrians (german speaking) or hungarian, and Austrian Empire had many people from other countries who spoke other languages. Itīs difficult to make a good army in those conditions.



Roads -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/13/2004 12:09:59 AM)

And yet the Poles and Bavarians generally performed very well under French commanders. Or the Germans (KGL) under the British.



fjbn -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/13/2004 11:07:17 AM)

About KGL, they had a tradition to fight on the brit side. not only in the revolutionary wars, but in seven years war, so it was not new for them. Poles corps were big and had many good poles officers (Poland desapeared only few years ago), and the same for the bavarian corps, because they were both old kingdoms with military tradition, but you cannot say the same for other countries.

Anyway, you cannot compare a nation with one language, like france, Russia or Prusia with others with diferent countries, like Austria or, in 1812, France.



Titi -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/13/2004 7:33:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fjbn
Anyway, you cannot compare a nation with one language, like france, Russia or Prusia with others with diferent countries, like Austria or, in 1812, France.


I beleive that you just made anl anachronism here. France in those years is everything but a contry with only one language. French is only spoken by people of Paris and the elite while people of each province is speaking some kind of local dialect like Breton, Picard, Alsacien, provencal... and many more.
What will made people fight for france is the revolutionary "ideology" rather than the language. Like one century and a half latter, the peasans and workers will fight with the red army.



fjbn -> RE: Sharing a Prussian AAR ... (8/26/2004 2:27:28 PM)

What about Blücher?. Is there any Blücher rule in the game like EiH or he will appear in 1806 like EiA?. This is very important because he is the only decent Prussian leader for a long time. Itīs very hard to carry Prussia with Hohenlohe as your best leader.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625