Technical information needed!! (Full Version)

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



Message

98locko -> Technical information needed!! (3/1/2005 6:04:53 PM)

Hi...

I'm currently playing EIA with my friends... on the board game... and we all had a technical information to ask you guys.

There was a battle between the Russian and the English. The Russian surrounded the English army of Willington with one big pill and 5 small corps. The English has choose Withdraw and his dice roll was successful. Can the English withdraw even if he is completely surrounded!!??

We taught no... if yes... how does it happed! Where does he retreat???

Tnx a lot.

A major fan of the EIA game



Titi -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/1/2005 7:06:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 98locko

Hi...

I'm currently playing EIA with my friends... on the board game... and we all had a technical information to ask you guys.

There was a battle between the Russian and the English. The Russian surrounded the English army of Willington with one big pill and 5 small corps. The English has choose Withdraw and his dice roll was successful. Can the English withdraw even if he is completely surrounded!!??

We taught no... if yes... how does it happed! Where does he retreat???

Tnx a lot.

A major fan of the EIA game


7.5.2.5.2.3: Each corps which withdraws is retreated by the method given in Retreat after Combat (see 7.5.2.10.3), except that the retreat is conducted by the controlling player. There is no pursuit.

7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat: The loser is retreated one area by the victor. This occurs after pursuit (if any).
7.5.2.10.3.1: All retreats must be into an adjacent land area that is closest (any closest area, if several qualify equally) to the nearest depot of any nationality in force, or if none is on the map, towards that force's nearest controlled national capital city.
7.5.2.10.3.2: A retreating force may never be split up.
7.5.2.10.3.3: If the area retreated to contains an unbesieged enemy corps, cossack, freikorps or depot garrison, the force is retreated one more area (same rules as 7.5.2.10.3. 1), etc., until an open area is reached.
7.5.2.10.3.4: Retreat across a crossing arrow or onto ships is not permitted.
7.5.2.10.3.5: A force may not retreat into the same area twice in the same retreat.
7.5.2.10.3.6: A force must surrender (A army factors and leaders in the force become prisoners) if no retreat route is available.

IMHO, the british withdraw in an adjacent area containing a russian corps and then as per 7.5.2.10.3.3 continue to a second area.
The only time when a force surrender is when fighting on an island like Malta or when its capital is occupied and it don't have any more depot.



98locko -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/1/2005 7:30:25 PM)

So even if the army has been completely surrounded and all the provinces around it have a enemy corps, it withdraws... but instead of backing of one space... it backs from 2!!!

Is that it???

And if the army doesn't have any depots on the map... It have to surrender???



ardilla -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/1/2005 8:45:53 PM)

Yes, that is a little problem of the EiA called "teleportation" that can cause an army to move 2, 3, 4 or more areas away in a withdraw or after a lost battle...



YohanTM2 -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/1/2005 9:02:42 PM)

No, it does not have to surrender. It will just retreat towards its capital until it finds an empty space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 98locko

So even if the army has been completely surrounded and all the provinces around it have a enemy corps, it withdraws... but instead of backing of one space... it backs from 2!!!

Is that it???

And if the army doesn't have any depots on the map... It have to surrender???

quote:

surrender???



ardilla -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/1/2005 10:05:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 98locko

And if the army doesn't have any depots on the map... It have to surrender???



About surrender an entire army, it is almost impossible, only as Titi said, when fighting in an island (Malta or Copenaghe are the most common places where it can happend).
And it may happend also in Gibraltar if attack by another country different than Spain and if Spain is not allied of GB or denies access to GB the turn before (of course if not using forcible access option rule!).



donkuchi19 -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/2/2005 1:50:37 AM)

The only way I have seen entire armies lost is due to surrendur terms where you lose corps.



Hoche -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/2/2005 4:27:39 AM)

Can a corps retreat into a neutral minor?



Titi -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/2/2005 4:55:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: donkuchi

The only way I have seen entire armies lost is due to surrendur terms where you lose corps.


In a rare event, i also see the entire Prussian army defending Berlin theorically surrender after a land defeat. Reason no more depot on map and no combined movement chose for this turn.
In the game, a gentleman agreement allow the prussian army to retreat in the direction of the East as it was only the second game week of the new prussian player (a common prussian pratcice [;)]).



Titi -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/2/2005 4:55:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoche

Can a corps retreat into a neutral minor?


10.3.1.1 MINOR COUNTRY ACCESS: Any major power may move forces and trace supply through a neutral minor country. A major power may not also build depots and/or occupy cities in a minor country unless that major power is at war with or controls that minor country.

So IMHO, the reply is yes.



Pippin -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/2/2005 11:59:18 PM)

I also do hate this teleportation flaw, as if you are not carefull you may inadvertently give your opponent a bonus. O_o



Camile Desmoulins -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/5/2005 1:32:05 AM)

Everybody hates it [:@]. Some tricky gamers can travel many areas because the retrat is in de near depot direction (another difficult question: which are this direction for a british corps in Lisboa and the only depot in London?) can travel 5 or 6 areas, for a corps with only 3 areas of movement [&:]. We developed a home rules tu limit this trick, of course. This rule born to prevent that only a real stack and four or five corps with only one factor can surround many coprs and surrender it, but the solution has created an almost more serious problem [X(]



yammahoper -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/8/2005 2:34:25 AM)

In defense of the rule, those areas on the map are very large areas with plenty of room for an army to march and manuever.

A far nastier trick with corps I have seen is Russia stringing out 10 corps with 1 factor each and using them to create "roadblocks" for advancing armies. That one always irked me (I have seen the Austrian use it also).

yamma



NeverMan -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/8/2005 6:27:22 PM)

That is one of the reasons Russia is so powerful, because it is VERY difficult to invade Russia. Using the 1 factor corp army (which is easy for Russia due to the large number of corps in the army) and then using cossacks to burn enemy depots, makes it very difficult to invade Russia, which is the way it should be.

I also always hated the "teleportation" rule. It allows the opponent to plan his retreat if he moves first and knows you are going to attack him, he can be like "well, if he attacks me I will give it a shot at winning but in case I lose I will setup this path for retreat and then be in great position to do this". This strategy can be especially useful for France because of it's dominance (move last then first) and also because of it's great leaders it always has a chance to win battles it shouldn't.



timothy_stone -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/9/2005 9:36:55 AM)

quote:

That is one of the reasons Russia is so powerful, because it is VERY difficult to invade Russia. Using the 1 factor corp army (which is easy for Russia due to the large number of corps in the army) and then using cossacks to burn enemy depots, makes it very difficult to invade Russia, which is the way it should be.


A russian player (or any other) that relies too much on this is going to lose a huge number of political points, especially against france (who will double-move to pop 5 corps for a net gain of +6 pps (-5 for russia, difference due to napoleon) then regroup before russia can hit anything back.

Some people use the rule that says 5:1 fights get resolved as trivial combats to argue that 5:1 fights are not worth a pp. -- when played that way, the attacker just comes in with a 4-factor corps (with 1 cav factor for the +1) then reinforces to finish the fight - france has plenty of leaders for that.

very few nations can afford that kind of pp drain

p.s. personally, i disagree with the interpretation that "resolved as a trivial combat" means that there is no pp involved - to me it simply means that you don't bother with chits - which is an option for *any* field combat. but the pp cost remains.

but that is a different discussion. : )



NeverMan -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/9/2005 6:09:30 PM)

The whole point of that strategy isn't to defeat the invading nation nor to win pps. The point is to stale the invading nation and make the invasion as costly as possible to the invader. If you can deplete the invaders war chest while staling it's movement into your country while losing minimum army factors, then maybe you can find an ally against the invader or test the patience of the invader so much that he/she makes a mistake and puts themselves in a position for you to take advantage of.

If you think it is easy to invade Russia then you have been playing with incompetent Russian players. It is very hard to go "get poland" or to "march onto Moscow". If you declare war on Russia and Russia chooses to fight you on it's borders rather than inside it's country, then the Russian player either has a big upper hand or is incompetent.



ardilla -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/10/2005 2:37:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

Some people use the rule that says 5:1 fights get resolved as trivial combats to argue that 5:1 fights are not worth a pp. -- when played that way, the attacker just comes in with a 4-factor corps (with 1 cav factor for the +1) then reinforces to finish the fight - france has plenty of leaders for that.

p.s. personally, i disagree with the interpretation that "resolved as a trivial combat" means that there is no pp involved - to me it simply means that you don't bother with chits - which is an option for *any* field combat. but the pp cost remains.

but that is a different discussion. : )


About your different discussion, I have to tell you that you are right, there are PP involved, even with the 5:1 trivial combat rule. As you said, it is simply to avoid to choose a chit since there is no sense in such a proportion of troops.
And there is always a lost of PP since there are corps involved in the fight, that is the basic rule, corps involved in a combat, PPs won/lost.



NeverMan -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/10/2005 5:25:32 PM)

Yes, ardilla is right, if there is corp present than there are PP involved. I am not sure how you can "interpret" this any other way, as it's pretty clear in the rules (if I remember correctly).



Titi -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/10/2005 6:54:21 PM)

7.5.3.5: No political points are gained or lost in trivial combats. EXCEPTION: If both commanders had agreed to resolve what could have been a field or limited field combat by using trivial combat procedures, the normal political point changes are made (see 7.5.2.10.1.3).

I'm unable to find anything in the official rule about 5/1 odds becoming trivial combats so i guess it's a house rule or time has come to buy new glasses[sm=00000116.gif]. But that doesn't prevent the application of the Exception above.



Hoche -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/10/2005 11:36:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titi

7.5.3.5: No political points are gained or lost in trivial combats. EXCEPTION: If both commanders had agreed to resolve what could have been a field or limited field combat by using trivial combat procedures, the normal political point changes are made (see 7.5.2.10.1.3).

I'm unable to find anything in the official rule about 5/1 odds becoming trivial combats so i guess it's a house rule or time has come to buy new glasses[sm=00000116.gif]. But that doesn't prevent the application of the Exception above.


It's in the errata. When I get home from work I will post it.



NeverMan -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/10/2005 11:36:22 PM)

Good rule find!! Apparently I did not remember correctly. I did remember that two players can agree to resolve the combat has trivial combat, however, I am still pretty sure that the 5 to 1 thing is in there, but I don't have a rulebook handy and it's been 4 years since I have played the game, so I really don't know. LOL. I love the lawyer-esque rules of EiA.



Titi -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/11/2005 3:12:20 AM)

You're right, got this from the errata (The General 25/4) :

12.3.10: OVERWHELMING NUMBERS: Field or limited field combats where one side has a 5:1 or better ratio in strength factors _must_ be resolved using trivial combat. EXCEPTION: An outnumbered _defender_ may attempt to withdraw before the trivial combat by rolling the commander's strategic rating or less.

And here we have obviously a rule problem with an errata poorly written. First, you don't know if you have overwhelming numbers until 7.5.2.6 STEP SIX-REVEAL FORCES/MORALE LEVELS: Both players reveal their forces and determine their final morale levels.. That's clearly working in the opposite way that : 7.5.3.1: Trivial combats are resolved similarly to field combats, but the procedure is much simplified. No operational possibilities chits are chosen <cut>.

IMHO if i use this errata, i will only replace step 7 and part of eight aka artillery by the field combat and keep the others, including PP win/loses.



Hoche -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/11/2005 4:23:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titi

You're right, got this from the errata (The General 25/4) :

12.3.10: OVERWHELMING NUMBERS: Field or limited field combats where one side has a 5:1 or better ratio in strength factors _must_ be resolved using trivial combat. EXCEPTION: An outnumbered _defender_ may attempt to withdraw before the trivial combat by rolling the commander's strategic rating or less.

And here we have obviously a rule problem with an errata poorly written. First, you don't know if you have overwhelming numbers until 7.5.2.6 STEP SIX-REVEAL FORCES/MORALE LEVELS: Both players reveal their forces and determine their final morale levels.. That's clearly working in the opposite way that : 7.5.3.1: Trivial combats are resolved similarly to field combats, but the procedure is much simplified. No operational possibilities chits are chosen <cut>.


IMHO if i use this errata, i will only replace step 7 and part of eight aka artillery by the field combat and keep the others, including PP win/loses.


ah man you beat me to it. [:'(]



timothy_stone -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/11/2005 3:46:50 PM)

quote:



About your different discussion, I have to tell you that you are right, there are PP involved, even with the 5:1 trivial combat rule. As you said, it is simply to avoid to choose a chit since there is no sense in such a proportion of troops.
And there is always a lost of PP since there are corps involved in the fight, that is the basic rule, corps involved in a combat, PPs won/lost.


that is the way i have always understood it, but i have played in several pbem games where the majority felt otherwise, so when a vote was taken we ended up playing that the rule meant 5:1 combats were not worth pps - which just led to people attacking screens with 4-factor corps then reinforcing in, it was silly.

there are several (dozens) of rules that i've learned that people play different ways, i ended up keeping a list of them all, and each new pbem game with new players, i would list them all and we'd vote on them. That way whether we agreed or not, we all knew how we were playing the rules - it made for far less arguments



timothy_stone -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/11/2005 3:57:49 PM)

quote:

The whole point of that strategy isn't to defeat the invading nation nor to win pps. The point is to stale the invading nation and make the invasion as costly as possible to the invader. If you can deplete the invaders war chest while staling it's movement into your country while losing minimum army factors, then maybe you can find an ally against the invader or test the patience of the invader so much that he/she makes a mistake and puts themselves in a position for you to take advantage of.

If you think it is easy to invade Russia then you have been playing with incompetent Russian players. It is very hard to go "get poland" or to "march onto Moscow". If you declare war on Russia and Russia chooses to fight you on it's borders rather than inside it's country, then the Russian player either has a big upper hand or is incompetent.


So... how do you leap from my statement that playing the screening game, especially against the french can cost a ton of pps to the conclusion that i must think that invading russia is easy, or that my the folks i play with are imcompetent? Please don't put words into my mouth and then try to score points off of these imagined sayings and insult my friends in response - that's not all that nice.



Pippin -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/11/2005 4:55:32 PM)

My 2 cents..

I say, I think the biggest fear people have is facing a very experienced French player. Next on the list is facing an experienced Russian player. And when they both work together, the rest of the world gets put in, well.... a world of hurt.



John Umber -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/11/2005 5:18:26 PM)

It would be nice if you could post those rules that people were arguing about.

The only way I have fought with "small" corps was when trying to circle the french main army and I got Prussia and Russia with me (playing Austria). It got a lot of minor out from the french army, but cost a lot of PP as you have noticed.

In the end we won when England joined in and we simply outnumbered the French. It was fun though.



NeverMan -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/11/2005 7:49:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone


So... how do you leap from my statement that playing the screening game, especially against the french can cost a ton of pps to the conclusion that i must think that invading russia is easy, or that my the folks i play with are imcompetent? Please don't put words into my mouth and then try to score points off of these imagined sayings and insult my friends in response - that's not all that nice.


I wasn't leaping to that or putting words in your mouth, just stating that invading Russia shouldn't be easy and that the particular strategy in question is by far one of the best I have seen. I don't know how good your friends are and I never mentioned them. What I was saying is that if a Russian player lets Russia get invaded then he/she is a pretty incompetent Russian player. That incompetence might be due to lack of experience or intelligence or whatever, I don't know. All of my posts are in "general" terms and are not intended to offend anyone, except the ones put directly toward MatrixGames.

I am sorry you took my post so personal.



Hoche -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/12/2005 12:34:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Umber

It would be nice if you could post those rules that people were arguing about.

The only way I have fought with "small" corps was when trying to circle the french main army and I got Prussia and Russia with me (playing Austria). It got a lot of minor out from the french army, but cost a lot of PP as you have noticed.

In the end we won when England joined in and we simply outnumbered the French. It was fun though.


The only web site you will ever need for eia
http://haverts.com:16080/eia-archive/flash-index.html



hlj -> RE: Technical information needed!! (3/12/2005 1:10:54 PM)

http://haverts.com:16080/eia-archive/flash-index.html Has an error on its 1805 chart for spain. Spain has only 3 fleets but the sheet shows 4.

And in the EIA map one of the forrests in sweden have been transmutated into a mountain



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375