Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Right, I understand the forage and supply rules, unlike some others ... I have played the game off and on for 17 years or so. To me the moster stack issue still presents a problem with ahistorically large armies stacked together and little action on other fronts. The monster stack issue can be managed in the game, but still irks me.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

Although I agree in principal with JeffK, especially regarding the scope of this game. But the Prussians proved in the aftermath of the Napoleonics, that you could indeed improve your officercorps dramatically without a revolution (i.e. they were still mainly drawn from the nobility).

I have played a lot of EiA over the years and Jeff's comment regarding EiA-players smarts. My main experience is, I have seen all kinds of players and I'm sure some of the best are hiding right in this forum. And with "best" I dont neccesarily mean those who win a lot. To play EiA "the right way" you have to do away with the typical WW2 total war attitude. EiA is a political game, of which economics and warfare both are aspects (Clausewitz - the napoleonics beeing his source). Thus it is usually won or lost in the political arena. You can lose a war, even 2 and still come out ahead (well, not as France obviously). One could argue, that even Napoleon fell victim to seeking (political) resolutions only with strength of arms in his later years. On the other hand, this does not mean, that EiA is but a different kind of Diplomacy. EiA is a blend. You usually cannot succeed by playing it like a typical wargamer or a typical Diplomacy gamer. Of course, the different countries require different attitudes. France can bully, Britain can wield the economical whip, Russia can extort, but nobody can stand truly alone al the time.
So, the best EiA player is the one, who keeps his longterm goals in mind, stays a gentlemen in victory and defeat, stays true to his allies and friends. And most important, doesnt quit over a defeat. People who do that should be banned permanently from this game, branded . They havent got what it takes to play one of the best and most involving games on the market.

quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Right, I understand the forage and supply rules, unlike some others ... I have played the game off and on for 17 years or so. To me the moster stack issue still presents a problem with ahistorically large armies stacked together and little action on other fronts. The monster stack issue can be managed in the game, but still irks me.

Jason

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Experience will vary based on your play group. Most of our players weren't willing to concentrate large armies (I consider large >6 corps, massive > 12) for more than very limited times - say 1 or two months. The French (depending on their choices, may have tons of $) and the Turks (sometimes you just don't care how many feudals starve) being the only notable exceptions. It usually looked more Napoleonic - multiple stacks concentrating only for battle (as far as I recall - it's been a while).

We were pretty sensitive to the economics of MP over the course of the game so we hated losing anything to foraging, and the English and French were typically frugal in their disbursements.

But I never did the math to see if even 6 corps was a realistic number.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
In reality troops were gathered (scraped) together and placed under their commanders, usually the King or his Son in charge, a couple of Dukes & Princes below them and then those who are owed favour. If lucky, leaders of ability get Divisions/Brigades and hope (along with their men) that the incompetent leading their Corps stops a round shot from the enemy artillery. The French were past this, and by 1815 other Nations were getting there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden

Although I agree in principal with JeffK, especially regarding the scope of this game. But the Prussians proved in the aftermath of the Napoleonics, that you could indeed improve your officercorps dramatically without a revolution (i.e. they were still mainly drawn from the nobility).

I have played a lot of EiA over the years and Jeff's comment regarding EiA-players smarts. My main experience is, I have seen all kinds of players and I'm sure some of the best are hiding right in this forum. And with "best" I dont neccesarily mean those who win a lot. To play EiA "the right way" you have to do away with the typical WW2 total war attitude. EiA is a political game, of which economics and warfare both are aspects (Clausewitz - the napoleonics beeing his source). Thus it is usually won or lost in the political arena. You can lose a war, even 2 and still come out ahead (well, not as France obviously). One could argue, that even Napoleon fell victim to seeking (political) resolutions only with strength of arms in his later years. On the other hand, this does not mean, that EiA is but a different kind of Diplomacy. EiA is a blend. You usually cannot succeed by playing it like a typical wargamer or a typical Diplomacy gamer. Of course, the different countries require different attitudes. France can bully, Britain can wield the economical whip, Russia can extort, but nobody can stand truly alone al the time.
So, the best EiA player is the one, who keeps his longterm goals in mind, stays a gentlemen in victory and defeat, stays true to his allies and friends. And most important, doesnt quit over a defeat. People who do that should be banned permanently from this game, branded . They havent got what it takes to play one of the best and most involving games on the market.

Gday Norden,

Didnt mean to slag all of the EiA players, it just seemed to be a lot flying about here.
In saying revolution, it doesnt have to be the violent type. I'd argue that the Prussian 'revolutionised" their Army after having their old Structure smashed by Napoleon. Some other Nations would have had to resort to a "bloody revolution" to convince the Higher Social strata that there wasnt a God Given Right to command Armies.

Within this Game, which highlight the various foibles of the Nations involved, should also highlight the foibles of their command structures.

Otherwise players can create elite forces commanded by elite leaders and march them around Europe, a la WW2.
In reality troops were gathered (scraped) together and placed under their commanders, usually the King or his Son in charge, a couple of Dukes & Princes below them and then those who are owed favour. If lucky, leaders of ability get Divisions/Brigades and hope (along with their men) that the incompetent leading their Corps stops a round shot from the enemy artillery. The French were past this, and by 1815 other Nations were getting there.