RE: Best way to play each power (Full Version)

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



Message

ardilla -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/14/2004 10:48:05 AM)

Very good one!!

I will keep it in mind for next game :)



Manfred -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/14/2004 5:30:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fjbn

Mmmm. Is your use of Ney llegal?. It surprise me. I think that you control Cirenaica for defence, it´s not really a FS.

BTW, Britain has 19 Inf, and Cirenaica is 1/2, so, if British lost 4 Inf, it will take a whole year to replace the losses.


I'm pretty sure that it's legal :
when you take control of a minor, it become your free state until conquered by the aggressor : you can use Ney (or any other off map leader) since reinforcement phase is after the DoW phase.
moreover, if you declare war on the aggressor and keep control of the minor, or if there's a lapse of war between the aggressor and the minor, you'll keep the minor as a free state.



eg0master -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/14/2004 5:56:41 PM)

In order to be able to use a leader with the minor's army I would say you also have to be at war with the agressor.
At least we have used that as a house rule if not a real rule, i.e. if the controlling MP of a minor is not at war witrh the agressor, the minor may only be defended using the minor's own troops.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/14/2004 6:32:36 PM)

That is my understanding as well. Also, very gamey to have a leader teleported around the map.



Ozie -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/14/2004 8:46:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

Here is a tactic I used as the French against the British. Any time the Brit. declares war on a minor that France gets control of, I would place Ney in charge of the minor stack during the reinforcement phase(keeping him off the board and ready for this)!


As long as you don't loose all of the forces and the British get to capture Nay. It's not like you are going to get him back any time soon since peace with Britain is not that likely.



yammahoper -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/15/2004 4:32:59 AM)

We always allowed leaders used in defense of minors, but if caught, the leader did not have to be returned until peace was made. If it was a minor, the leader was returned after it was conquered (unless at war with the leaders major power) but it cost an additional 2pp and the power that captured him gained 1pp.

yamma



Irish Guards -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/15/2004 10:55:41 AM)

All minors attacked by a Major are Frre States. I think that when a controlling Major wants to take possession of minor ,,, all other major powers can try to get said free State influenced to them ...

He who gets it decides what to do w forces ... he can DOW on Major attackin and keep Free State .. ???

Isnt any minor w corp able to free state and double production for themselves, and conq gives amount on map

Kleves ?? No Corp .. never be a free state ... cant use own production

Irish Guards



montesaurus -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/16/2004 7:09:13 PM)

Hi Yohan
I don't think it's gamey, or teleportation to transfer leaders. You have to remember that each turn represents a month and the process of placing and then taking off a leader actually involves a two month period where he could be considered traveling, which was more than adequate to get around Europe/North Africa. It took Napoleon less than a month to sneak back from Egypt to return to France via Frigate!
Respectfully,
Monte



YohanTM2 -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/16/2004 9:08:55 PM)

Sure Nappy came slinking back in that time. But realistically, war is declared and movement happens. Is Ney going to somehow magically drift over the Med?

Perhaps with an easy land route I would buy it. Or if you can show a path from a free port to the destination.



Forward_March -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/17/2004 12:28:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

Perhaps with an easy land route I would buy it. Or if you can show a path from a free port to the destination.


I agree with this. There are other things to consider...like national pride. It was one thing for a man from another country to work his way into a position of responsibility (like Mack or Barclay), or for a commander with some troops from his own nation to add to the native defenders that might give some reason for a nation to accept a foreigner in command.

But it would be quite another for a nation to ask (or accept) to borrow one man to change their fortunes of war. I don't see the Prussians asking to borrow Kutuzov when they had a war hero (Brunswick) already in command...and a king (albeit not a experienced leader) there.

Only after a nation has gained dominance of a free state (i.e., conquered it or formed an alliance and sent troops (in the latter case) to aid in it's defence should the controlling nation be able to supply a leader from it's own ranks.

Most states had some form of command structure, and it'd be a slap in the face for them to have to suffer under some dude from another country when he's brought no troops. He would have almost certainly brought more than the home nation's defenders to persuade the monarch not to leave his own officers in charge.



oahunick -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/17/2004 10:24:34 AM)

I could see the Ney gambit as a viable move.

It is legal EiA play but the debate seems to be realism.
Lafayette and Pulaski were indeed respected, proud leaders back home. But both came to the Continental Army because "that's where the action is" among other reasons.
A good house rule would be a leader could serve a freestate corp(s) if thier home nation is not at war (more restrictive) OR if no enemy troops are in home provinces (less restrictive)

Agree with Yohan and 'March - it's a minor rule that has fun possibilities of gamesmanship. But some historical perspective is ALWAYS nice.

With no restictions mentioned above Nappy make an Ottoman Army or a Swedish Army wreak some serious havoc, which would shake up the basic EiA gamepaly too much. [:-]

If France was in a European Dogfight in 1779 Lafayette would probably have stayed just like Ney would not venture to Africa to fight in what could at best be called a sideshow or terciary theatre.

Take care everbody.



Irish Guards -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/18/2004 3:30:11 AM)

You actually think Turkey is gonna be your Ally, more to gain for short turn France in acquiring territory as Protector of Empire, 22 ships right ???

you better start sellin drugs fir your economic output ,, else militia

lookin forward to playin agin Allies .. who nay Allies

Irish Guards[&o]



hlj -> RE: Interesting British strategy (9/19/2004 2:31:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg

A friend of mine believes Britain is in charge of keeping the anti-French alliance together. When someone is not quite on board and are not listening to reason, he suspends trade, declares war, and takes the full amount of victory points he can per turn from them. It is amazing how many people decide getting on his bad side is not worth it.


If Britain did this in a game against me he would make sure that my only goal in the game would be to see his plan fail.

If I were Spain or Russia, I would try to convince the other that we had to ally with france, invade England and force england to make a double surrender to remove the imidiate threath of him taking vp's from anyone.

If I were playing Turkey, Austria or Prussia, I would try to convince Russia and Spain to form an alliance with france and I, to the same end as mentioned above.

If they did not listen to reason, I would try to make an agreement with france: I would help him in any way I could, deploy my military if necesary, and I would sue him for peace every time he declared war and accept his demand of an unconditional surrender.

If I by some odd chance could not get that deal with France and no one would help against Britain, I would still try any way posible to make sure Britain did not win, and that he would se me as the main factor to that end.

It is amazing how many Britain players decide taking VP from me is not worth the trouble it gives.[:'(]



hlj -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/19/2004 3:16:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:Forward_March
Only after a nation has gained dominance of a free state (i.e., conquered it or formed an alliance and sent troops (in the latter case) to aid in it's defence should the controlling nation be able to supply a leader from it's own ranks.


Dont say that something should not be allowed, when the rules allow it. Simply say that you usualy or allways play with a house rule that don't allow it.

To begin to try and make EIA into a realistik and historical accurate game - something that it is far from - is not something that I would like to do, as it in my experience tends to upset the gamebalance more than it alligns the game with realism or history.

quote:

ORIGINAL:oahunick
With no restictions mentioned above Nappy make an Ottoman Army or a Swedish Army wreak some serious havoc, which would shake up the basic EiA gamepaly too much.


EIA have allways allowed leaders to be placed on controlled corps. when you roll for controll of a minor country, control over any corps in that minor country is exactly what you get. In my oppinion it will upset the EIA gameplay drasticly if it is not allowed.



yammahoper -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/19/2004 6:22:11 AM)

Since GB has to be at war with a nation to take VP, it seems to me your overall strategy against GB to stop them from taking VP is a very moot point indeed, since GB already decided it did not fear being at war with what ever nation you are playing.

That said, I have seen the reduction in VP used rarely. I have played GB many times and only recall using it twice, once against a red hot france and once against a Russia that gained dominance. Unless GB has blown his chance to win the VP race, using the rule hurts him as well as the target of the VP reduction. Not exactly a perfect trade off.

yamma



hlj -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/19/2004 9:03:23 AM)

I dont se how my point is moot, If Britain early in the game decides that using VP reduction is a major part of his strategy, I will as any country, if the vp reduction has ben deployed against me or any other feel it necesary to make sure GB did not want to use that strategy again. I have always thought, what a player is willing to do against one major power, he will also be willing to do against another major power. And in every game I have played where GB have used VP reduction prior to the last two years of game time, I have allways been able to persuade France Russia and Spain to se it the same way. So the deployment of VP reduction prior to the last two years have in my experience allways resultet in GB loosing their chance of winning.

Any strategy that results in the complete loss of the Brittish chance of winning, could only be moot if the British own strategy ensures that they will loose. So to say my strategy to keep Britain from taking VP, is moot. Is to say that if Britain takes vp prior to the two last years of game time, they will automaticly have lost any chance of winning the game.


So if you as GB dont fear driving a potential ally into French arms by declaring war on him and taking VP's from him, that is because you have never played against people who thought stealing VP the lowest thing GB can do.



Murat -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/19/2004 6:30:20 PM)

What a lot of people are forgetting is that if no nation reaches their Victory Point total, Britain wins. This is why Britain can afford to sacrifice the points to keep others down.



fjbn -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/19/2004 6:57:16 PM)

you're right. For example, EiA rules says that initial fleet strenght marks the number of ships of line or a number of auxiliary ships (frigates) of every power. Well, that´s not true. GB had 100 SOL and maybe 150-200 frigates spread all over the world, Spain had 50-60 SOL and a number like this in frigates and the same for France. If you are realistic in numbers but you aplly the double movement, GB will rule the waves still more than it was in reality.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/19/2004 9:36:40 PM)

quote:

So if you as GB dont fear driving a potential ally into French arms by declaring war on him and taking VP's from him, that is because you have never played against people who thought stealing VP the lowest thing GB can do.


"Lowest thing" That is a strange comment. Its a game, its a rule...who cares, it is part of the potential strategies available. My counter to your threats if I was playing GB would be the same as any other strategy. Make sure your alliances are in place.

If you and I were in the same game the use of VP reduction by GB would be treated by me as any other action by another player. If he is my enemy, I would still fight him. If I was neutral I would weigh the impact on my fortunes. If he is my ally, go for it.

Until of course he is no longer my ally. [;)]



Pippin -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/19/2004 10:47:39 PM)

Well, lets assume I am Russia. If France got too many VPs too fast, I do not think anyone would object (except France) if Britain subtracted points off of France. In fact, I could see a case where Britain could make profit from bribes here. Everyone donates a few dollars to Britain, and in turn Britain makes sure she keeps France tied down from crossing the finish line too quickly :P



Forward_March -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/20/2004 12:19:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Well, lets assume I am Russia. If France got too many VPs too fast, I do not think anyone would object (except France) if Britain subtracted points off of France. In fact, I could see a case where Britain could make profit from bribes here. Everyone donates a few dollars to Britain, and in turn Britain makes sure she keeps France tied down from crossing the finish line too quickly :P


I would object, no matter which power I was playing. And if I was Britain I surely wouldn't use it as a strategy. It's too ephemeral...chicanery. The purest of tricks. In an era where victory comes from diplomacy, battle, and management of funds, this is too much like pulling a rabbit from a hat. What would be the point of playing if no matter how hard you fought, someone could pull out the carpet from beneath you?

France: Checkmate!
Britain: Oh no you don't! Watch this! Presto! France (or Russia, or anyone else), all you've done, all you've worked for, is erased with the eraser on my magic pencil!

Horseapples!!!



yammahoper -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/20/2004 4:09:22 AM)

The ability to manip VP supposedly represents GB massive influence around the globe, creating bad press and making other countries think poorly of them in general.

As for the ability of anyone to convince major powers they should declare war on GB for doing so, I almost laugh. Surely it is a matter of individual players and what the angered nation has to offer, not some morale failing of GB. It is indeed a game. I have always played to win and in general do not find the VP reduction stategy one I am good at employing, since I am instead always manuevering to stay in the dominant zone and score 10+ VP a turn myself, which is surely a more secure way to win than lowering my own score. I have a hard time imagining any player of GB mastering instead keeping everyones VP total low so he can win (and I have never seen GB win this way, though admittedly, I have also never seen GB win unless I was playing her). GB needs to keep the pressure on Fr. Certainly, after Au and Pr take a wooping from the Fr, I cannot see those players being angry over GB reducing Fr VP points. It is a matter of politics. If hlj has indeed seen GB players reducing VP pell mell then I have no problem believing his ability to draft others in a crusade against GB. Outside that, any half decent GB player should be able to avoid wars with Ru, Au and Pr unless he WANTS to fight them (Ru is the only one of these nations with a navy and the small GB army is not much of a threat to conquer her either).

So, while reducing points can be a good tactic, it is a good situational and occassional tactic. In my own experience, when I as GB created the coilition against a dominant Ru, I used the VP reduction to insure that Ru would not gain to many VP during the war and to appease my allies, who did not want to see Ru jump even more in points. So, as far as I can see, either hlj's GB player is not to ploitic in a game that requires it, or hlj IS the dominant political player in the games he plays in, sort of like our old days with Scott Wall, a man who would convince you to do something that later would have you going "Now WHY did I agree to THAT?!" BTW, he was the one who made Ru dominant.

yamma



ardilla -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/20/2004 10:56:37 AM)

Your comments rise a question.

In the EiH rules, GB number of ships had been reduce to 80, I guess because he had many ships abroad, not all of them in Europe....

So, since MG is going to add some new types of ships, from the EiH rules, is going to change the initial number of ships for GB also?!??!

Thank you in advance.
Regards.



Forward_March -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/20/2004 11:21:54 AM)

Then they'll have to change them for everybody. Russia had some 90 ships of the line and frigates I have read. Opens up a whole new can of worms. Let's hope Turkish dhow's don't get counted;) Barbery pirates, too?



megalomania2003 -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/24/2004 1:57:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com
So, as far as I can see, either hlj's GB player is not to ploitic in a game that requires it, or hlj IS the dominant political player in the games he plays in, sort of like our old days with Scott Wall, a man who would convince you to do something that later would have you going "Now WHY did I agree to THAT?!" BTW, he was the one who made Ru dominant.

yamma


Or the players he play with simply hate that tactic. In that case I would simply (as we have done where I play) agree, before game start, to play without this rule. I do not belive that it is essential to the game to let GB take victory points away from other players.



Pippin -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/24/2004 8:49:07 PM)

quote:

France: Checkmate!
Britain: Oh no you don't! Watch this! Presto! France (or Russia, or anyone else), all you've done, all you've worked for, is erased with the eraser on my magic pencil!

Horseapples!!!


It is not quite exactly like that. First of all, there is only a percentage Britain can reduce, and she has to have earned points first of all to even subtract them. It’s hurting her as well.

If you have correctly checkmated Britain, (Landed your corps into London strong enough to hold), then her magical hat isn’t going to help her here. At least I don’t see how.

And as mentioned before, what is Britain going to do, keep declaring wars on new players each month the second someone gets too many VPs? By pissing off the strong guys, how is she going to have victory points to even subtract while trying to defend herself?



Telsor1 -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/24/2004 9:51:45 PM)

The Ney to cyrenaica strategy is legal, but only because French is already at war with Britain and Cy is automatically supported.

I generally have Ney sitting with a corp on the French fleet working as a potential threat and defence against Pippins strategy ( which is well known in my group ).

One point that doesn't seem to have been discussed greatly here is anti-brit strategies.. Amoung my group it's accepted that while it's nice to defeat France in the first war, you will get plenty more chances. Leave Britain alone for a couple of years, and they'll be nigh on impregnable.

Of course, as the UK, I have strategies to prevent this..every opportunity to destroy fleets is taken, along with bounties on ships destroyed ( I regularly pay $1 for yours and $3 for other countries ships sunk..I've even paid these to both sides in a battle! )...of course, anyone building ships gets on Britains bad side. Leaving your fleet at sea in range of major Brit fleets is suicide..I have DOW'd the turks to destroy their fleet before, then gone to an informal peace afterwards ( it's -1 PP if the turks have 1 fleets and you use Nelson, but I'll pay a PP to get rid of 20+ ships ).



ardilla -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/25/2004 11:09:56 AM)

About the Ney and Cyr strategy, well, it is good to cause more losses to the brits, but, is going to be difficult to win a battle with corps of 1 or 2 moral against 4.5 moral corps!!

And that results in a lose of PP for increase in 1 or 2 more kills to the brits...after all I dont know if it is worth...but I will try it if I can!!



Telsor1 -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/25/2004 4:37:01 PM)

My preferred way of playing the african minors is to put the 5 inf in the city as garr and keep the cav in corp...it makes the corps higher morale ( 2 Vs 1.5 ) and you can always run it away and forage it to death if you don't feel like risking battle ( set it up away from the city if this is the case )



yammahoper -> RE: Best way to play each power (9/25/2004 5:09:10 PM)

GB has one major weakness that if left open should be immediately exploited. It will require the French to leave two fleets and a 20 factor corp sitting in a port waiting for the right moment. If the GB player leaves a single port ungarrisoned, the Fr player needs to rush his navies into that port. Even if the GB player attacks in the same naval phase, and the Fr lose the naval battle, as long as the Fr have 2 ships remaining (to keep both fleet markers on the board) after the battle, then they will be able to land the corp because losers of port battles do not leave the port! Rather, the attacker returns to the blockade box and prepares for another attack agaonst the port, which will be too late. Far worse for GB is if the Fr make the move AFTER GB has made its naval move, thus allowing capture of the port without loss of a ship and gaining control of the port guns if GB decides to attack next naval phase. Talk about pie in the GB players face...not that this has EVER, err, happened to ME...no, no, no...this is all HYPOTHETICAL, of course.

Ok, it DID happen to me. Needing troops for a new corp, I took the entire garrison from one city without realizing what I had done, thus allowing Fr to get froggy. This of course disrupted my invasion in Italy as I disbanded corps and ploped them down home to fight nappy. While the Au was left hanging with only two british corps for support, I did pull nappy out of the battle. BTW, we had six battles, three to Nappy and three to Wellington before casualties caused Nappy to flee Britain and surrender his last four factors.

yamma



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875