Most controversial EIA rule...

Most controversial EIA rule... (Full Version)

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

Message

Marshall Ellis -> Most controversial EIA rule... (5/10/2005 4:38:10 AM)
Hey guys: How bout we play a game to find the most controversial rule in standard EIA. Not an add-on rule but in the standard EIA rules. What do I mean? The rule that causes the most hours of fighting, etc... Thank you

98locko -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/10/2005 7:49:36 AM)
I’m sure about one thing… the rule that has caused the more problems in my EIA games is the “Withdraw rule”!! (7.5.2.10.3.1 to 7.5.2.10.3.6) That rule says that “The loser is retreated one area by the victor” in an area next to where the fight took place or where a successful withdraw was made (In that final case, the withdrawing commander choose where he withdrawal’s). But it also says that if your army is surrounded, you must continue to another space until you find a free land space… I know that it’s a bit complicated, but follow me to the rest of this explanation. The way that it’s explained, you can either continue and retreat of 2 areas (witch has been called by many has the “Teleportation Rule”) to finally find a free land space… witch could mean that your army could retreat from 2, 3 or even more areas. OR, if no routes are possible because your army is completely surrounded by enemy armies, you have to surround the rest of your corps and generals (even on a successful withdraw) without even fighting. Me and my game buddies have found a compromise with the rule that I’ve mentioned in my earlier post (Interpretation problem) “It should advantage or disadvantage everybody on the map”. Our interpretation for this rule: If a fight took place and that the defending army was vanquished and that it’s completely surrounded by enemy armies (refer to example #1 in the bottom of the page) it has to surround itself to the enemy commander who began the fight against it. First example: Davoust (French) is attacked by Charles (Austria) and Willington (England). Charles is the one who starts the Battle against Davoust. After the first round, Willington is successfully called to join the battle. The Austro-English army win’s the battle against Davoust (French army). After the battle, the French commander has to retreat his army (if still left), but no routes are available because all the areas next to we’re the battle took place are occupied by enemy armies (Even if it’s by an enemy army, for example Prussia, that didn’t took place in the battle). Davoust has to surround himself to the Austria army because Charles was the one who began the battle (it eliminates unnecessary arguments between players to know how’s going to take Davoust in his jails) If a free space is available, then the French army can retreat. And if the only free space that is available is occupied by another French army or by an ally of the French’s, it merges in that army, even if the number of corps by the leading commander is exceeded. Second example: The French army is still completely surrounded by enemy armies. Davoust attempt a withdraw and it’s successful. The way we play it, Davoust withdraws in the direction he wants to and doesn’t have to fight. We apply the “Teleportation rule” for this case, so this means that Davoust will move to the closest free land space of his choice even if it’s 3 spaces away. If Davoust misses is withdraw, he has to fight and win the battle if he doesn’t want to be captured (LOL!!! Good luck with that!!!). So the way we play it doesn’t give any advantages to anybody and it doesn’t disadvantage anyone either. Probably that some of you will say that the French’s commanders have more chances to roll a successful withdraw witch is true. But this advantage is already there at the start of the game. Other nations have advantages that the French army doesn’t have. The Russian army can use is Cossacks to surround an army, the Turkish army have numerous corpses (If Ottoman Empire is created) that he can also use for this purpose… and so on! You also have to take an historical fact in consideration. During the Napoleonic’s wars, they we’re a lot of victims during the battles, but there was also a lot of men captured after those battles; witch doesn’t happened a lot during the game if we always use the “Teleportation rule”. And it boost the withdraw strategy witch was used a lot during these wars; just think of the Russian army against the French in 1812. Thanks for reading and if anything isn’t clear enough, just tell me… I’m better in French than in English so mistakes can take place… hehe!!!

pfnognoff -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/10/2005 8:57:10 AM)
That rule for sure is controversial but in some strange way it is not a "gray area" meaning it can be read and clearly understood in a way that "teleportation" is in accordance to the rules however strange it may sound to somebody familiar with basic wargaming, where you are allways destroyed if surrounded and forced to retreat. I think the designers had one thing in mind when they wrote this "teleportation" rule and that is the fact that broken French army (from your example) can be surrounded with just a few 1 factor corps while the army in retreat can have over 50 factors. How in the world can you stop a retreat of 100000 troops with just 2000 regardless off the fact they broke in another battle, they are still a fighting force. Their morale will sore immediately after they are confronted by the commander of the 2000 with the request to surrender [:D][:D][:D] So in my mind this rule is just an abstraction, which sounds silly but is there for a reason. "Gray areas" that me and my buddies constantly incountered are those rules that beggin in one section of the rule book and are found somwhere else sometimes even without the refference. Few examples: - For a supply chain to be valid is it Depot -Area - Depot or is it Depot - Area - Area - Depot? We finally agreed it is the second option just because max range you can pay for supply is clearly Depot - Area - Army. - For a naval supply where do you have to have a fleet? At the source or at the destination? If it is invasion supply do you still need another fleet at the source? - The biggest discovery (that even killed one game) was when French player discovered that after loosing a naval battle he doesn't have to be chased to the nearest port, but can just withdraw to the neighbouring area and invade England from there [:)] - Rules for "who my fight" are quite difficult to read so we delegated the responsibility for deciphering them to one player and nobody argued, just because nobody wanted to go through the nightmare of reding them [:)] - And it goes on and on, but I don't recall them all at the moment... All of the rules were at some point clear to all, with the erratas and especialy with EiH version, but boy was reading the original rulebook fun!!!

ardilla -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/10/2005 10:12:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pfnognoff How in the world can you stop a retreat of 100000 troops with just 2000 ..... Few examples: - For a supply chain .... - For a naval supply ..... - The biggest discovery.... - Rules for "who my fight".... I agree with 98locko, the "teleportation" rule when retreas is a big problem, since it doesnt make sense how come an army could move 5 or 6 areas away, with mountains!, out of his movemente phase or even worst, before his movement turn as the defender, so after the battle and retreat he can still move!!! This one brings up strange situations...i really think that somethig should be done to avoid this and the other secondary option of this rule mentioned by pfnognoff, an army of 120 points surrender to a depot army with 5 points!!! Maybe now with the help of a computer could manage to take care automatically of this, like if the defeated army is 5 or more times bigger than the one which is not allowing him to retreat, then he retreats there and there other one retreats or gets into the city if room and if there are no areas available or not a 5:1 ratio, the defetead army has to surrender...or even further, fight another time like if it was a second day with a -1.0 to his morale!!!! About the supply chains, we play with depot-area-depot, i dont think it is the same way a depot can feed an army than how a chain has to be build, since you can feed at 3 areas away from the last depot...very unclear rule too! Naval supply or reinforcement is also complicated, some people even allowing to do a triangle naval reinforcement (A (home port with a fleet), B (depot), C (nothing), we do not allow this, since it looks "clear" the depot for reinforcemt should be at the home port, and the rules only talks about 2 ports, allowing to have one thing each or both one (fleet and depot), always the depot in the home nation, IMO. Yes, the biggest rule "hole" for the main war french-british is the retreat rule to a sea area or harbour if the fleet is not completly destroyed, so even if the french navy with 3 or 4 corps is almost destroyed (90% losses) can still be at high sea and compleated his disembarking in the island. Another top ten is who may fight since there are can be stranges situations where we can find multiple nations stacks beeing attacked by another multiple stack beeing not all countries in one at war with the all the rest in the other stack!!!! Very complicated, since this will bring in a movement phase new declarations of war, retreats, etc... And what about a fleet beeing blocked or under attack beeing able to intercept another phasing enemy fleet!!! it is allowed by the rules, since it is not forbiden!?!?! this one is completly not logical... I will think for more, but you can find houndres of this question discussed in the yahoo forum empiresinarms. Regards

Roads -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/10/2005 7:32:56 PM)
While the teleportation rules lead to pretty bizarre situations, using cossacks to force a surrender seems worse. After both Dresden and Leipzig armies that had been handily defeated easily took out corps that stood across their retreat path. I think it's depot-area-depot too, but why couldn't they make that rule more clear?

NeverMan -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/11/2005 4:37:13 AM)
The teleportation rules are not contreversial to me so much as bull$hit!! The most contreversial rules are the UMP fleets rules. It states that a controller Major Power Player has unlimited control of an UMP's fleets during active or inactive status. How are you going to implement the UMP rules? Are you even going to have UMPs?

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/11/2005 3:49:55 PM)
Neverman: We're not implementing UMP rules. We've thought of, and could add in the future some type of UMP control for a human player that successfully allies with an AI player but we decided that many of the UMP rules are tough and it would be difficult to police a human's treatment of their UMP so we took the high road and decided NOT to implement. Thank you

Pippin -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/11/2005 7:50:18 PM)
I can tell you one issue a lot of newbies have is that Britain can subtract VPs. Perhaps because they are inexperienced they may have let a player do exactly this all game and let her get away with it. That would explain this tremendous fear.

Madcombinepilot -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 2:38:29 AM)
I think its the Minor country control. Background 1805. France DOW a minor neutral with an army . The rules state that the other countries vie with each other for control, and a 'free' counter is placed on the map, with the major country controller now in control of the minor country. example 1) The major country is already at war with France in this example. Is the minor considered a free state from this point forward or just until the neutral is conquered by France or the War lapses with the minor - for that matter, if France is at war with both Major controller and minor, can the war lapse?? if no lapse, then if France surrenders to the Major controller, does the major controller retain controll of the minor as a free state?? example 2) The major controlling power is not at war with France. If the war with the minor lapses, does the neutral minor revert to neutral status with its control preset for the next war (or not preset - and if not preset, what repercussionsfor PP's)? If France really wants to conquer the neutral, does she now have to DOW the major controlling power to DOW the minor again? is said minor a true 'free state' for the major controller with all benifits as such? There are rules on this for arguing both ways.....

eg0master -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 9:04:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Madcombinepilot I think its the Minor country control. [...] There is more around minor control... example3: Controling MP is an (un)official ally of France and places no defense in the capital, giving France the minor at no cost.

ardilla -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 9:44:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eg0master There is more around minor control... example3: Controling MP is an (un)official ally of France and places no defense in the capital, giving France the minor at no cost. Well, maybe something could be done about this...using the game AI to control the neutral, to have a real defense vs the attacker, or if the the neutral is influenced by another MP, ask this MP to control it if he wants to help it with troops or leaders...and if he denies, just leave it to the IA, but if the ally MP of the neutral is at war with the attacking MP I think it has to be a must for him to control it... About the lapse of war, as in the rules, there after the control of another MP, then you must DoW vs the owning MP to attack again the same neutral, yet under control as a Free State. BTW, something that I dont like either is when 2 countries are at war and there is a 3rd one out of the war (enforced peace or neutral) allied with the attacker (or with both) and after the attacker takes away a conq from the defender, just ceded it to the 3rd one so that can not be retaken from the defender unless he (if he can) DoW onto the 3rd party....i find it too unrealistic.....does someone had try to play withour the cedding step rule??? will make it more realistic, maybe?? Regards,

Pippin -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 8:00:24 PM)
Maybe getting off topic, but when I am France, rarely do I use my cavalry to run a pursue (unless everyone on the board is against me). It is silly IMHO to hit your opponent TOO HARD, as you lose VPs that way. Lets be honest, this game is all about VPs, and not historical accuracy or realism. The max I can gain would be 3 from a battle, and a +1 if I have Napol with me. If I want to get more, I need to do another battle. Why kill off more my opp's counters, when I will only then collect less VP's the next turn around. Sometimes I think I am almost rules bending here, but it is legal according to the game. Just makes no realistic sense.

carnifex -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 8:46:38 PM)
quote: - For a supply chain to be valid is it Depot -Area - Depot or is it Depot - Area - Area - Depot? We finally agreed it is the second option just because max range you can pay for supply is clearly Depot - Area - Army. quote: I think it's depot-area-depot too, but why couldn't they make that rule more clear? I know a lot of EiA rules are vague, but it seems to me 7.2.3 is pretty explicit: quote: 7.2.3 DEPOTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A new depot may be placed within two unblocked areas of an already existing (before this Turn) depot... "Within two unblocked areas" - so you can have Depot-Depot (1 area away) or Depot-Area-Depot (2 areas away).

Ontario -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 8:58:07 PM)
I once played as Russia at war with Spain. The Spanish attempted to cross from Denmark into my controlled Sweden but were defeated in the first land area after the crossing. There was a very animated argument following involving everyone playing because the retreating rules were in dispute. Spain could not retreat over water; however the only other direction to go would be forward through the Russian army which had just defeated it, (that obviously did not seem right). There was about an hour of debate and reading/re-reading the instructions, (none of the specifics of which can I recall now), but in the end we ruled it as a Spanish surrender of the remaining corps/General. Does anyone know if that was the right call? If memory serves correctly there was some support from the book for both sides of the argument and this was an in house settlement to allow the game to proceed. Other then that I agree that the UMP's always cause a problem whenever they are implemented. Not once have I seen it done smoothly.

carnifex -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 9:30:07 PM)
According to a strict reading you should have retreated the Spanish army through the Russians until a clear space was found. If you need rationalization you can argue that a province is quite large and it's quite possible to avoid the enemy considering the communications of that era. Assuming no existing Spanish depots, the army would have wound up in Gothenburg. One more point about the silly withdraw rules. What the hell is "closest"? As in "All retreats must be into an adjacent land area that is closest..." Closest how? By movement points? By number of provinces? By a ruler? And if a ruler, do you measure from the center of the province or the border or the city within, if any? And if the closest depot is in Copenhagen and your British ass just lost in Lubeck, do you go north because the Copenhagen depot is closest, even though you can't actually retreat there, or do you retreat into Hannover, towards your capital? The last example is real - I captured Wellington and the entire British army once because they had to retreat north toward the inaccessible Copenhagen depot but unfortunately for them all of Denmark was occupied by 1 strength French corps (har har har).

pfnognoff -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/12/2005 11:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pippin Maybe getting off topic, but when I am France, rarely do I use my cavalry to run a pursue (unless everyone on the board is against me). It is silly IMHO to hit your opponent TOO HARD, as you lose VPs that way. Lets be honest, this game is all about VPs, and not historical accuracy or realism. The max I can gain would be 3 from a battle, and a +1 if I have Napol with me. If I want to get more, I need to do another battle. Why kill off more my opp's counters, when I will only then collect less VP's the next turn around. Sometimes I think I am almost rules bending here, but it is legal according to the game. Just makes no realistic sense. If you do that, I will just surrender and maybe go to war aginst your ally or something and not give you another battle... Plus, no matter how powerfull France is it still comes down to rolling three times 1 or three times 6...

NeverMan -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/13/2005 12:37:46 AM)
The point of pursuing is to convince your enemy to surrender to you, preferably with an unconditional surrender (8 PP with Royal Marriage) and then go hit someone else to get your PPs. The pursuing allows you to save your Army so you can immediately turn around and stomp someone else into the ground!! :) If you do not turn around and immediately attack someone else then the 8 PPs will put you well into Econ Manip cruising range.

Pippin -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/13/2005 3:21:30 AM)
quote: If you do that, I will just surrender and maybe go to war aginst your ally or something and not give you another battle... So you want to give me another 8 VPs additional? Thanks! :P

ardilla -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/13/2005 10:11:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan an unconditional surrender (8 PP with Royal Marriage) ?? I thought it was 5 for unconditional +2 for RM....that makes 7.

pfnognoff -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/13/2005 8:44:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pippin quote: If you do that, I will just surrender and maybe go to war aginst your ally or something and not give you another battle... So you want to give me another 8 VPs additional? Thanks! :P This is getting too general we need to know the circumstances of the particular situation. I'm talking that if I was Austria and you are France and you have just won the first battle of the war (receiving 4 PPs) and you don't pursue, then Austria depending of the loses suffered in that battle can decide not to give you another 4 PPs and 5 after that, but instead just give you the 5 PPs for the unconditional (plus optional 2 for the marriage) and find someone other than france to win the PPs back. P.S. Ardilla is correct it is 5 PPs for the unconditional if you surrender to a single opponent and 8 if you surrender to all your enemies.

malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/13/2005 9:40:25 PM)
Ours wasn't a controversial rule so much as a real problem with game focus. I mean, you can tell someone over and over again that the winner is the one with the most VPs at the end of the game, but they'll still define a win for themselves anyway they like. Our worst example was when I played Russia and for 3 consecutive years Turkey, Austria, and Prussia launched campaigns against me. My only ally was Britain and France was keeping him out of affairs. The three fighting me didn't care that they were feeding me VPs or letting France roll toward an easy win, they simply wanted to crush my Russia. Likewise, he have had numerous cases of people realising that they were so far out of reach for achieving victory that they decided that the only option for fun for them was to play spoiler. So how do you make VPs and the winning conditions matter but still give rewards for smaller objectives? How do you make the finish line matter when you are three or four real time months away from that and it is so hard to see clearly?

NeverMan -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/13/2005 9:54:53 PM)
Yeah, probably. It's been awhile since I last played. Yeah, that's right cuz it's 3 (5) and 5 (7) without (with RM). Sorry for this mistype. Also, it's PP not VP. VP are only collected every Econ Manip round.

carnifex -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/13/2005 10:52:08 PM)
Well, you could argue that if someone is playing spoiler, then that is a situation created by the other players. If you're going to take someone for every PP you can get and continuously take their provinces and corps, it's not surprising that later on that person will play the vengeful spite card. Not saying that's what happened in your game, but I've seen it happen often enough on my own.

Pippin -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/14/2005 1:17:47 PM)
quote: Likewise, he have had numerous cases of people realising that they were so far out of reach for achieving victory that they decided that the only option for fun for them was to play spoiler. Ok I am guilty of being a Mr. Spoiler in the game too. But to my defence (before everyone hangs me here), I only did this to get even! Yes, the last time I spoiled it for someone was when I got seriously backstabed by two bastards I shall not mention here. My back was broken, and I was down and out for the rest of the count. Not wanting to be a real spoiler, I still stayed in the game despite knowing I had no hope. Well, as the months went by and not to my surprise one of those bastards I didn't mention was sailing ahead in the VPs. Would have been a sure thing, except I threw whatever was left at him and insisted on doing everything in my power to bring him down, despite it was foolish. I even aided my own enemies in order to do so. Har har! Sure, he was upset (mad as hell to be exact). While screaming how he had that game won were it not for my kamakazie play, I had to remind him had he not BS'ed me, he would not have been in such a predicament. I was just getting even. Next few games after that went by like a charm, everyone was too afraid to BS me even when they had the perfect chance.

hlj -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/15/2005 2:58:22 AM)
quote: 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. The problem with these rules is not teleportation. The problem is with the defenition of the goal of the retreat. What if Napoleon attacks Charles in the mountains in tyrol. Charles is standing on a depot and because he wants to add the depot garision to the battle he decides not to destroy the depot. IF Napoleon wins then the nearest depot would be the one in the area of the battle, and any surrounding area would be eligeble to retreat to. If Nap chose to let a corps stay in one of those areas, then he could let charles retreat to it. Now the nearest depot is still the one where the battle took place, so the only elligeble area would pr rule 7.5.2.10.3.1 be the area that the battle took place. And Charles would be forced to surrender pr rule 7.5.2.10.3.5 and 7.5.2.10.3.6.

pfnognoff -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/16/2005 2:48:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carnifex quote: - For a supply chain to be valid is it Depot -Area - Depot or is it Depot - Area - Area - Depot? We finally agreed it is the second option just because max range you can pay for supply is clearly Depot - Area - Army. quote: I think it's depot-area-depot too, but why couldn't they make that rule more clear? I know a lot of EiA rules are vague, but it seems to me 7.2.3 is pretty explicit: quote: 7.2.3 DEPOTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A new depot may be placed within two unblocked areas of an already existing (before this Turn) depot... "Within two unblocked areas" - so you can have Depot-Depot (1 area away) or Depot-Area-Depot (2 areas away). I somehow new that I was not totally mistaken when I said depot placement is vague and controversial, and here is why : 7.2.3.2 SUPPLY CHAIN DEFINITION: A "supply chain" is a series of one major power's depots that are placed no more than two areas apart and lead back to a supply source of that major power. "No more than two areas apart", to me a non native english speaker, casts a shadow over "Within two unblocked areas" [:)]

carnifex -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/16/2005 9:33:53 PM)
The EiA rulebook would have been SO MUCH CLEARER if there were more graphic examples of setup and play. Like there would never ever be any disagreement if the authors only provided a simple diagram - see? this is how it looks, depot, empty area, depot, it's all right there in the picture. Plus, yeah, it should have been re-written :) With bullet points!

yammahoper -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/18/2005 3:07:11 AM)
The rule that states corps perish if left at sea. As if an entire army would allow itself to be killed by starvation at sea. The rule that states you may not enter another major powers territory without permission. I say go on in, beach the corps or take the short cut, and if te other nation doesnt like it, let them declare war (does anyone imagine Germany asked Belgium for permission to move through their territory?). I have no problem with retreat and potential teleportation. This is a strategic game more than a tactical level game. Stuff happens. The total lack of ability of an army to avoid an enemy army when marching/moving. I mean, if the areas are so large you can teleport through the enemy, why not sneak by him when marching? Often, lines of 1 factor corps get placed to slow marches, it is annoying. The inability to destroy an enemy fleet. Unless one side greatly out numbers another, naval combat rules do not allow for complete victory like you can generate in the land battles. Yamma

Pippin -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/18/2005 5:09:46 AM)
quote: The rule that states corps perish if left at sea. As if an entire army would allow itself to be killed by starvation at sea. I also found that rule nonsense and asked about it years ago. The response was, "It is part of the official rules, do not question it, just accept it." Still shaking my head over that one.

jamo262 -> RE: Most controversial EIA rule... (5/18/2005 4:28:59 PM)
the rule about retirement ino a city. I use 1sp corps to slow down an army and retreat into a city before battle. Is the game going to have a 5 to 1 over-run to counter act this?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.966797