News from the Beta - Deviation List (Full Version)

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



Message

Ralegh -> News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/29/2005 3:24:23 AM)

Hi - I'm Ralegh, and I joined the EIANW testing team a few weeks back. A few of you will know me from the COG forum. I'm an EIA/EIH player and my interest in EIA led me to Matrix, which in turn led me to COG, and my work on the COG beta got me into the EIA beta. Professionally, I'm a Software Architect in Canberra Australia.

To help me do testing, I put together a list of features, and the beta gang helped me understand what was in and what was out for v1 of EIANW. (EIA is a huge game, so they couldn't implement everything in V1.) Here is my Consolidated Deviation List [this is really just the 'major' features - there are a number of other more minor deviations that Marshall is keeping a track of].

I don't think Marshall will consider any of these for v1 - right now we have him beavering away at bugs - but some of this stuff might make it into a patch or a version 2 - I suppose it is up to the player community to provide feedback on the relative importance of different features... This thread would be a good place. In no particular order, and with sequential numbering just to make it easy to refer to things:

Rules not implemented
1. Forced march
2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)
4. Besieged port city supply
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)
7. British change to VPs
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)
10. Scuttling of ships
11. Demobilizing
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion
14. Large fleets
15. Limited supply
16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]
17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms
18. Peace treaty limited access
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)
20. American trade restriction
21. Naval raiding
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions
25. Change of Dominance status

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.
30. Access through the Dardenelles
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport
33. Privateers and privateer defence



Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/29/2005 4:27:07 AM)

Here's a list of the changes I feel will negatively alter gameplay.

4. Besieged port city supply

This added an interesting tactical element. It's not a game breaking feature, but I don't see why it should be left out

11. Demobilizing

Pretty much the same thing as above.

15. Limited supply

I know this is in theory an optional rule, but this is major. It's an effective detterent against monster stack tactics.


17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms

Again, an optional rule, but given that the game conditions do not favor a British-France rivalry, and that in the initial situation, they tend to be allies more than enemies - and that they are the 2 most powerful nations in the game - I don't think doing away with that rule is a good idea.



leighm -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/29/2005 6:25:43 AM)

I pretty much agree with Barbu's thoughts but also would like to see Proportional Losses & corps on loan incorporated.

What's happening with no British change to VPs. Will the game include the condition that if no-one wins, then Britain wins? If so, British Change to VPs is important.

And please, please, please..... tell me that we will see the additional Kingdom rules somewhere down the track. How can you have a Napoleonic game without the Kingdom of Italy or the Confederation of the Rhine????????

Leigh



j-s -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/29/2005 11:28:16 AM)

Thank you for information.[&o]
There is a lot of important rules that are left out. It will change a lot of things and I hope, that these will be added to the game:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
1. Forced march

Sometimes it is a huge advantage. We have used it a lot in all of our FtF games. If it's left out it's out and nothing helps. But I hope it will be on some patch.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
2. Defender retirement into the city


I'm not a programmer, but is it hard to make a guestion "Will you retirement to the city: yes or no?". This is not so bad anyway. But you can't so easy bluff with corps just one factor...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

Bad to GB. And is loser retreated to the port or is it possible to retreat adjacent sea area? If not, this is bad to all others that GB [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
4. Besieged port city supply

Bye bye Gibraltar... This is MUST to the GB!
On EiA you need to block Gibraltar naval supply, if you want to attack there. And first of cource you must deal with GB navy. Now you don't need to do that anymore. And losing gibraltar will damage GB game on mediterran a lot. And this will affect to many coastal manouvers and so on.

This is a major thing that i want to be in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)


Not so bad, could be added to some patch. Can live with this


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)


What this means? "Sponsored" minors can't assault? Or if I have a free state, will this affect tho them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
7. British change to VPs


It looks like there is Frace players programming this game [;)]
First garrison naval supply out and now this? No way! And it is a good question that will GB win if no other win?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]

Great, adding final bids in is a good.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)

Good start!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
10. Scuttling of ships

Not so important, but why this is left out? It can't be hard to add a "scuttle" option...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
11. Demobilizing

See up...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

yep



quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion
14. Large fleets
15. Limited supply
16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]

Those new political combinations would be nice. At least Two Sicilies with it's fleet is always used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms

Bad thing, this has always used. If this is not on the game, game will change a lot. That's why this optional should be a rule...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
18. Peace treaty limited access
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)
20. American trade restriction
21. Naval raiding
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions
25. Change of Dominance status

No change to dominance status? wow, this is a HUGE! This means that France/GB will be dominant powers all time. That's a change that I don't like. Dominance should absolutely be in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)

This makes a lot of things easier. Like: programming, turkish attack, PBEM games....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.
30. Access through the Dardenelles
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport
33. Privateers and privateer defence

why to add extra things (privateers and so on) to the game, if some important basic rules have to left out? Basic naval system would have been a lot of easier to program. If it's EiA, then it should be a EiA. If rules are changed a lot, it will be a different game.

Anyway, I am a critical for major canges to the basic rules. But I want to thank you for you message, this is something I have been wating for. Thank you and good luck with testing!



NeverMan -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/29/2005 8:33:36 PM)

It's unfortunate that most of the important rules were left out yet so much time was spent on implementing unneeded EiH options.

I am glad that they did get the bidding thing, although since it is not done in the game, this aspect is very much like cyberboard, which is free.

"rules not implemented" that are really needed:

1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11

Of those, 1, 2, 4 and 10 are REALLY important, IMO

Optional rules are just that "optional", however, I would like these to be implemented:

15, 16, 17 (should really be a non-optional rule, but whatever), 19, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24

Yeah, sorry that is a long list, but those are the ones I really consider non-optional and I have always played with so to me those are like EiA RULES really. They bring a lot of balance to the game that is needed, IMO.

Changed rules that I disagree with:

26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33

I guess I will offend some people with my criticism (carnifex), but I really don't care.

It seems that maybe EiA should never be adapted to the PC, or at least technology (or something) just isn't ready for it. If these are the way the rules are laid out I am not sure how you can even legally call this game EiA. I guess AH doesn't care as long as they get paid. What a shame!




Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/29/2005 11:18:12 PM)

Doing away with 2&3 would majorly affect gameplay in a ftf game, but I think we have to keep in mind that these rules might be hard to use properly depending on how multiplayer interaction is implemented.




Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/29/2005 11:26:45 PM)

You're way too harsh neverman.

I agree that it's hard to fathom why stuff like #1 and #10 isn't in the game. Force marching is an interesting element that should be in, but it's hardly a major game altering change. #10 (scuttling) should be in as well but doing away with it will only have a very minor impact on the game. I've seen fleets scuttled in a major fashion three times, and every time it was the french doing that to buy peace with Great Britain.

#8 - Frankly I don't really care. Basic victory conditions are *supposed* to be balanced regardless of bids.

#16 adds flavor, is fun, but is largely inconsequential over the course of a game.




Hanal -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 12:28:28 AM)

I am so glad I never played EiA the board game as I will not have a bank of rules to reference and therefore not be so anal about what is missing!



hlj -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 2:39:45 AM)

I think it sounds great.
I like that 2 and 7 isnt in the game.
it is GREAT that 13, 14, 20 and 25 isnt in the game.

At this point I dont want to highlight any rules I find missing or wrongly implemented in the game. Instead I wish you good luck with your testing, and hope you all finish this game soon.

When I have played the game for a couple of weeks I might post suggestions for things to include in future patches.

HLJ[:)]



Pippin -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 2:58:47 AM)

quote:

15. Limited supply

I know this is in theory an optional rule, but this is major. It's an effective detterent against monster stack tactics.


Limited supply has been shown to create more problems than it fixes. I wont miss this one if it is left out.




Windfire -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 3:00:37 AM)

I would like to see the 1788 campaign from EIH adapted to the computer game in a future patch or expansion.

Looking forward to playing the game.



Pippin -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 4:02:36 AM)

quote:

On EiA you need to block Gibraltar naval supply, if you want to attack there. And first of cource you must deal with GB navy. Now you don't need to do that anymore. And losing gibraltar will damage GB game on mediterran a lot. And this will affect to many coastal manouvers and so on.


I must be playing Britain all wrong. I never found much use for Gibralter at all, except as a buffer to hold enough key territories to prevent the loss of my dominant status if too many players try to knock me out.

If I want to go south-east on a voyage I will just make multiple stops at friendly Spanish ports if I must. If the Spanish try to NOT be so friendly, then I will still dump my corps at her ports regardless, and FORCE her to wise up.

P.S. You get no gold or manpower from Gibralter so what's the big deal. And if Spain realy wants it, she will take it no matter what you do. However, 99.9% of the time she has no use for it so it's not even worth the hassle for her to do so.







Falconius -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 6:12:12 AM)

Okay, you asked for feedback, so here goes:

17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.

22 & 23: Proportional losses: Without this, one faction in a force can take all the losses, while another takes none. This can be unbalancing and seemingly unfair. How are the losses to be decided, anyway? If chosen at random, it will more or less work out to be proportional anyway, so I'm hoping that's the way it currently stands. But randomness can be flukey and fall prey to streaks. I'd hate to see a good game get ruined because someone became frustrated because they kept taking the lion's share of the losses and quit the game over it.

25. Dominance Changes: Takes away a very fun aspect of the game: setting a goal for your nation to achieve dominance, or trying to knock down a nation that already has it.

I hope to see these implemented, as you say, in some future patch or version of the game.




Pippin -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 6:23:09 AM)

quote:


17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.


With out the ability to subtract PP, I don't see many British players allying with France. The big bad monster will just turn into an even bigger monster and there will be nothing Britain can do to stop it after she realizes that mistake.




Ralegh -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 6:27:42 AM)

quote:

#10 (scuttling) should be in as well but doing away with it will only have a very minor impact on the game. I've seen fleets scuttled in a major fashion three times, and every time it was the french doing that to buy peace with Great Britain.


I'm not quite up to testing it yet, but the removal of fleets/ships (whatever the rule says) is in the game as a peace condition - what isn't implemented is a MP just deciding to scuttle.



Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 6:40:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:


17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.


With out the ability to subtract PP, I don't see many British players allying with France. The big bad monster will just turn into an even bigger monster and there will be nothing Britain can do to stop it after she realizes that mistake.




Disagree there. It's far easier to bring down France than to bring down GB. There's nothing that France can do to make herself impervious from a world coalition. The same isn't true from GB. If, while allied with France, GB manages to sink either the spanish or the russian fleet, good luck bringing the british down.




Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 6:41:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

15. Limited supply

I know this is in theory an optional rule, but this is major. It's an effective detterent against monster stack tactics.


Limited supply has been shown to create more problems than it fixes. I wont miss this one if it is left out.




How does it create more problems?




Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 6:43:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

quote:

#10 (scuttling) should be in as well but doing away with it will only have a very minor impact on the game. I've seen fleets scuttled in a major fashion three times, and every time it was the french doing that to buy peace with Great Britain.


I'm not quite up to testing it yet, but the removal of fleets/ships (whatever the rule says) is in the game as a peace condition - what isn't implemented is a MP just deciding to scuttle.


What I meant is the voluntary scuttling of the french fleets (not as a part of a peace condition) to get britain off her back - Since bottled up fleets aren't of any use in existence except to draw british hostility.

Anyway I won't miss it if it's not in.




Pippin -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 7:10:42 AM)

quote:


How does it create more problems?


The problem that limited supply creates has been debated for years on the EiH yahoo grooups. So if you're very interested, everything should be still archived there if you want to sort through them all.

To make a long story short, limited supply ends up giving you rediculous circumstances, such as an army of 5 factors costing far more to supply than an army of 22 factors. Strange considering the whole point of limited supply was to do the opposite of this thing in the first place!

IMHO the ones pushing for the limited supply option are people who have played the game a few times but are not experienced enough to think out of the box.




Pippin -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 7:18:12 AM)

quote:

There's nothing that France can do to make herself impervious from a world coalition. The same isn't true from GB.


It only takes 3 nations to ally in 1805 to knock out Britain from the get-go. And often just 2 can be enough.


Your next question is, if that is so then why doesn't everyone do it?

And my next answer is, because FRANCE is the one who ends up owning the entire UK for the rest of the game and ends up knocking everyone else off before 1815 comes around...




Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 9:12:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin


The problem that limited supply creates has been debated for years on the EiH yahoo grooups. So if you're very interested, everything should be still archived there if you want to sort through them all.

To make a long story short, limited supply ends up giving you rediculous circumstances, such as an army of 5 factors costing far more to supply than an army of 22 factors. Strange considering the whole point of limited supply was to do the opposite of this thing in the first place!

IMHO the ones pushing for the limited supply option are people who have played the game a few times but are not experienced enough to think out of the box.


You raise a good point - the rule favors some nations, like France with it's very large corps and is significantly harsher on countries with much smaller corps like Russia, and create some odds situations such as the one described above.

I think that in the end though, the rule achieves what it's supposed to do, which is to restrict the use of monster stacks and put a greater emphasis on supply lines.





Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 9:18:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

It only takes 3 nations to ally in 1805 to knock out Britain from the get-go. And often just 2 can be enough.


Your next question is, if that is so then why doesn't everyone do it?

And my next answer is, because FRANCE is the one who ends up owning the entire UK for the rest of the game and ends up knocking everyone else off before 1815 comes around...



I wouldn't do it as say Spain or Russia - but I have a very different outlook on things.

Reasons I wouldn't do it is I would have much greater freedom with the secure knowledge that France and Britain are busy with each other.

If I were forced to choose between the two however, the choice is easy - the british fleet goes to the bottom.

I am not sure why you're saying that France would go knocking off everyone else should GB be smashed. Odds aren't favorable for the french if they are faced by a coalition of pretty much any of the 3 other major powers under "normal" circumstances (except maybe for a combination of Spain/Prussia/turkey heh). But get either the Russian or Spanish fleet to bottom of the sea and the same logic can't be applied to GB vs the rest of the world.




Pippin -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 12:17:50 PM)

I have seen France with control of the UK. The amount of gold, manpower, and other penalties she can now inflict on everyone else, (e.g. knocking out all trades, etc) is huge. Perhaps you are right in that it does not mean France wins 100%. IIRC, as soon as UK falls into French hands everyone just wants to quit the game at that point anyhow.

If Britain is smart and gives a surrender early, then she will still get cracked on the head pretty hard, but perhaps she will live if Spain for example decides to remove her alliance from France.

Once France gets her corps into UK soil, she will make sure through every means possible as soon as any enforced peace time is up, her corps will have a guaranteed method of re-landing for another go.

Even a smart Brit who keeps surrendering early each time to save what it can, will just end up in a downward spiral of getting weaker and farther behind. Coming to a point where there is nothing left of her and it will end up in France's hands mostly.

Trying to rebuild the navy? Don't bother! You know she is going to lose 2 fleets on every surrender... lose any minors... and all trade will be banned. Not to mention worse problems when France isn't the only one getting repeated surrenders out of her.






Pippin -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 12:26:41 PM)

quote:

I think that in the end though, the rule achieves what it's supposed to do, which is to restrict the use of monster stacks and put a greater emphasis on supply lines.


You are going to penalize smart players using the Bluff Corps tactics even more, etc. Limited supply still causes more inconsistancies than it fixes. Just like every other rule that gets added into EiH, and then is ammended over and over until it is interpreted 50 different ways and gets vaguely explained.

If we were realy devoted to a limited supply structure, it should be done on a per factor bases. Of course, even if we did do this and find a system that works great for once, there would be other people upset how it takes the fun out of monster stack tactics!




timothy_stone -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 5:06:59 PM)

Not having proportional land losses is a shame - it proportionally helps the anti-french alliance, and also anyone allied with Turkey.

in the anti-french alliance, often you'll have a few british corps salting the german army, without proportional losses, the prussians/austrians can take all the losses, which will give them a higher morale over time than they would retain normally. Also makes it tougher to put the pressure on GB through manpower losses (since it is harder for him to rebuild).

Of course, this assumes GB is anti-french, which is a big assumption with the brit/fr at war rule not used.

And obviously, an Au/Tu force will happily kill off feudals all day long while fighting russia, etc -

shame, seems a mighty easy feature to implement



marc420 -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 8:09:18 PM)

When you talk about v1, does this mean some of these might be added later in a patch? Or is this going to be the usual idea of making everyone pay full price for another game to eventually see these features?

Maybe I've been burned too many times, but I'm getting tired of paying full price for a game missing features, then being told I have to pay full price a second time to get those features.[:-]

I like the idea of a EiA game, but I'm learning the smart move is to completely ignore the first and maybe the second release of a game system and wait for the full game to eventually be developed.[>:]



Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 9:05:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I have seen France with control of the UK. The amount of gold, manpower, and other penalties she can now inflict on everyone else, (e.g. knocking out all trades, etc) is huge. Perhaps you are right in that it does not mean France wins 100%. IIRC, as soon as UK falls into French hands everyone just wants to quit the game at that point anyhow.

If Britain is smart and gives a surrender early, then she will still get cracked on the head pretty hard, but perhaps she will live if Spain for example decides to remove her alliance from France.

Once France gets her corps into UK soil, she will make sure through every means possible as soon as any enforced peace time is up, her corps will have a guaranteed method of re-landing for another go.

Even a smart Brit who keeps surrendering early each time to save what it can, will just end up in a downward spiral of getting weaker and farther behind. Coming to a point where there is nothing left of her and it will end up in France's hands mostly.

Trying to rebuild the navy? Don't bother! You know she is going to lose 2 fleets on every surrender... lose any minors... and all trade will be banned. Not to mention worse problems when France isn't the only one getting repeated surrenders out of her.




How can France make sure to land safely in GB every 18 months?

The only way to do this would be to have a comfortable naval superiority over GB. Depending on the continental situation, this can be problematic.

Additionally, antagonizing GB over and over will offset most of the gains through reparations etc. Normal french trade with GB is often in excess of 20$. Should GB deny trade with France during the mandatory peace duration, that's 120$ lost right there.

Let's take the worst case scenario regarding reparations in this case: that's 34$ *2 = 68$, plus half the trade for 4 economic phases = 60$ from colonial trade, and assuming GB does not trade with France, about 80$ from trade in the best circumstances. So France in the best of conditions will end up roughly 80$ ahead every 18 months - Hardly a huge amount and certainly not enough to offset the cost of wars against GB.

I fail to see how France could mathematically ensure beating GB every 18 months, and also fail to see how achieving that would get her so much ahead.

Even using the mandatory war option, the main threat to France security does not come from GB, but from the Prussia-Austria alliance. the removal of GB one way or another would be a major boon to France, but my no means a guarantee of victory. Also consider that countries like Russia or even Turkey can replace GB in an anti-french coalition with far greater effectiveness than GB could manage in most circumstances.

In the initial 1805 situation it should be a relief to both GB and France to not be at war. France because war with the germanies is unavoidable in the short term and they represent the most important threat, and Britain because her interests tend to clash with Russia and Spain more often than not, and 64 less ships to worry about is a big difference.





Hoplosternum -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 9:52:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barbu


How can France make sure to land safely in GB every 18 months?




Well I think the wise French player would take Scotland or Wales in the first war. Then land 3 or 4 Corps on the 17 month of enforced peace and have his fleets tucked up in port for the (short) time it takes Nappy to take London and end the second war [;)] Rinse and repeat [:D]

I have seen an Russia / Spain / French vs England war from Jan '05. Not nice for Britain [;)] and France comes out of it well as his fleets are freed up and he gets trade etc with the UK. Of course the Surrender was negociated and Spain & Russia made sure that France does not get a foothold in the UK. France happily agrees to just about any conditions they want as he gains plenty anyway.

Other than that I think at least some of the moaning is a little over blown here. Surely you can house rule bid VPs, proportional losses (assuming the 'owner' of the stack chooses - see rule 29 for why there will be less joint stacks) and the England/France surrender.

I know that one of the big pluses of a computer game EiA is that it decides (one way or another) any rule ambiguities, but a few house rules will clear up many omissions. Things like naval rule changes and no force marches are much more important issues. But hardly show stoppers.

Thanks for the list [:)]



JRichert -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 10:23:36 PM)

The big rules no shows here are:

Force March - This can be key, especially in the instance of rapidly reinforcing a weak army that is vulnerable to attack.

New Political Combinations - Some of these are very important. The Confederation of the Rhine and Kingdom of Italy are huge for adding forces to the nations that control them. As was already pointed out, the K. of Two Sicilies is an important minor as well.

American Trade Restriction - This was a big factor in games. It could really hurt a cash strapped country if denied at the right time, but England had to be careful lest they go to war with the US.

Change of Dominance - This is huge. Why shouldn't France or England fight to the death if their dominance is not threatened? Conversely, you will not see a weak England or France surrender right away against a powerful coalition to save their status.

Insurrection corps placement - This is big because it is an anti-Turkey rule. Giving the Austrians greater latitude in playing the corps is not a great idea.

Retreats conducted by AI - This seems strange, couldn't a text window be opened to ask the player which way he would like to retreat?

The combined movement option is not a good solution. One of the perils of combined movement was movement order. If you used combined movement, you might move after your opponent. This way, that could be circumvented by giving the corps on loan to the player that moves first in the order.

Ships and privateers - I would prefer to have all EiA rules implemented before EiH rules, but I guess I have no power over that.

EiH took an elegant game and swamped it with tons more minutiae.



Barbu -> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List (8/30/2005 10:28:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum


Well I think the wise French player would take Scotland or Wales in the first war. Then land 3 or 4 Corps on the 17 month of enforced peace and have his fleets tucked up in port for the (short) time it takes Nappy to take London and end the second war [;)] Rinse and repeat [:D]

I have seen an Russia / Spain / French vs England war from Jan '05. Not nice for Britain [;)] and France comes out of it well as his fleets are freed up and he gets trade etc with the UK. Of course the Surrender was negociated and Spain & Russia made sure that France does not get a foothold in the UK. France happily agrees to just about any conditions they want as he gains plenty anyway.



I didn't consider that possiblity because the way we understood it, France would be forced to take c.1.c and c.5 as his first 2 picks if playing with a mandatory war option, and I suppose a smart spanish/russian player would make sure that France doesn't get a foothold. I suppose the rules could be interpreted in different ways though. Also if I am not mistaken, in order to pick either Wales or scotland one would need to have a corps in it, which would require either a main landing there, or a main landing at London and a secondary one in Scotland, or a main landing in England followed up by a corps moving up to either province from there (and if the british doesn't surrender before that last possibility occurs he's a complete fool) and finally that a landing is possible on the turn of the british decisive naval defeat. Lots of conditions there - gotta remember that the battle of britain is usually over after 1 or 2 turns.

Anyway not to derail this thread too much - What I wanted to point out is that I feel (and others do too) that the initial situation does not favor a GB-France rivalry, and that my experience when not using that option is that it was detrimental to gameplay.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625