RE: AAR - Ralegh

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AAR - Ralegh

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/27/2007 6:04:42 PM

darken92

Posts: 92
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Thanks for the AAR.

Sadly, it has made me less interested in purchasing the game.

To see the British running around with land armies besieging Paris and winning and getting a conditional peace out of France in 1805 shows just how broken the game can be.

The AI appears incompetent.

Certainly made this a must buy game to a maybe buy game.

This game with War in Flames are two of the best boargames I have played. I thought this was no brainer option. Great game that would be great to play and you see those sort of actions.

I will now wait to see how they go before purchasing. Very disappointed.

(in reply to malcolm_mccallum)

Post #: 31

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/27/2007 8:24:22 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
(snip)
At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).

Agree with all the rest except this: BR will declare war on FR just to gobble up the PPs from trashing their fleet and then go for their win. Once the fleet is trashed, France most likely will not build it instead relying on econ manip and quick border raids to keep their PPs flowing.

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 32

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/28/2007 9:20:46 AM

timothy_stone

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
(snip)
At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).

Agree with all the rest except this: BR will declare war on FR just to gobble up the PPs from trashing their fleet and then go for their win. Once the fleet is trashed, France most likely will not build it instead relying on econ manip and quick border raids to keep their PPs flowing.

imho a GB player short-sighted enough to DoW France again to try for pp.s on his fleet (except at the very end of course) will lose a lot more than he gains. A GB at peace with france can slap Spanish corps around at will for a lot more pp.s --- but once the war with France is on, french corps and french leaders make Spain off-limits for GB. Same goes for every nation on the board, as FR I'd lend at least one FR corps and a hot leader to anyone facing GB if he DoW'd me

to keep up with FR in the p.p./VP race, GB *has* to fight land battles. Once the GB navy has savaged the first sacrificial lamb at sea (and if he is at peace with FR), every single fleet is going to be parked in the high-defense ports.

And then, how's GB going to earn any pp.s? Napoleon will be making hay with the prussians/spanish/austrians in a cycle, and Britain can't compete without landing troops on the ground.

and those troops earn a LOT more pp.s when not facing FR leaders, mass and morale.

So, as GB *I'd* never DoW France again (unless it was critical) - but you're free to do as you like! : )

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 33

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/28/2007 11:24:34 AM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

Britain wins(won) by default and has(had) the ability to deduct pps from others. France needs(ed) almost 10pp an econ phase just to get to 100% of their victory condition. Fleet movement is faster than land movement so a Britain at war can keep the French running all over the board trying to stop the few British corps once the French fleet is sunk and the hulls added to Britain. Chasing the Brits all over is wasted time as you pointed out since French pps are closer at hand so Britain really does not lose in a DoW. Lending units is new to the computer game, somethng you could not do in the past and I do not know what the rules are for getting them back but you can forget me lending any portion of the Grande Armee out if I am France. With the possible exception of a Spanish ally, everyone else is target practice.

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 34

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/28/2007 3:05:01 PM

timothy_stone

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Britain wins(won) by default and has(had) the ability to deduct pps from others. France needs(ed) almost 10pp an econ phase just to get to 100% of their victory condition. Fleet movement is faster than land movement so a Britain at war can keep the French running all over the board trying to stop the few British corps once the French fleet is sunk and the hulls added to Britain. Chasing the Brits all over is wasted time as you pointed out since French pps are closer at hand so Britain really does not lose in a DoW. Lending units is new to the computer game, somethng you could not do in the past and I do not know what the rules are for getting them back but you can forget me lending any portion of the Grande Armee out if I am France. With the possible exception of a Spanish ally, everyone else is target practice.

I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?

the FR don't need to run everywhere to keep the Brits at bay, they just need to leave a small corps in SP and TU (perhaps other small targets) - if the Brits appear, drop a good leader there.

You don't need to leave a large army anywhere. Though if I've just drubbed Prussia (for example) and GB wants to attack them afterwards to vulture some points, I'll happily ally with PR and send him 100men and a leader - just to deny GB the points.

though i'm speaking of the old game, i don't know how the computer-game lending units works or course

FR can easily prevent GB from earning any pp.s in land battles versus SP/AU/PR (those nations simply decline field combat until FR arrives, and if GB is foolish enough to follow them into the interior of their nations, they risk having the Grand Armee arrive in between them and the sea - FR can move *very* fast with the double-turn.

GB has a tough time squeezing many pp.s out of Russia, due to the comparative size of the armies.

Which leaves TU as the only real target if you are at war with FR - whereas if GB keeps peace with FR, he can whack SP for points also - and even vulture Prussia (maybe even Austria) post loss-to-france

Anyway - I as GB would not DoW FR, I think I'll make points faster that way.
My style of play as FR is "I can beat up SP/PR/AU, but no one else can!"

You as GB would DoW FR - that's OK - that's why the game has such great replay value!

maybe one day we'll get a chance to try our ideas out on each other.... : )

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 35

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/28/2007 6:53:49 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?

Well no but we have had good players. GB has gotten a win though.

quote:

the FR don't need to run everywhere to keep the Brits at bay, they just need to leave a small corps in SP and TU (perhaps other small targets) - if the Brits appear, drop a good leader there.

You don't need to leave a large army anywhere. Though if I've just drubbed Prussia (for example) and GB wants to attack them afterwards to vulture some points, I'll happily ally with PR and send him 100men and a leader - just to deny GB the points.

though i'm speaking of the old game, i don't know how the computer-game lending units works or course

Well under the old rules stacking with these nations requires you to be allied with them and at war with Britain. You also are not allowed to loan anyone corps or leaders except under the peace consition.

quote:

FR can easily prevent GB from earning any pp.s in land battles versus SP/AU/PR (those nations simply decline field combat until FR arrives, and if GB is foolish enough to follow them into the interior of their nations, they risk having the Grand Armee arrive in between them and the sea - FR can move *very* fast with the double-turn.

GB has a tough time squeezing many pp.s out of Russia, due to the comparative size of the armies.

Which leaves TU as the only real target if you are at war with FR - whereas if GB keeps peace with FR, he can whack SP for points also - and even vulture Prussia (maybe even Austria) post loss-to-france

Anyway - I as GB would not DoW FR, I think I'll make points faster that way.
My style of play as FR is "I can beat up SP/PR/AU, but no one else can!"

You as GB would DoW FR - that's OK - that's why the game has such great replay value!

maybe one day we'll get a chance to try our ideas out on each other.... : )

Sea movement can also be doubled and you are talking about a 7 move over the sea zones (which themselves are large) -v- a 4 over land. Yes withdrawl into the interior can work but some minors then are left open. I actually want to try my strategies against several people here! I am most eager for battle!

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 36

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/28/2007 9:25:45 PM

timothy_stone

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?

Well no but we have had good players. GB has gotten a win though.

Of course GB can win - but you seemed to be saying that DoW'ing FR made sense because GB could then win the default way, which i disagreed with.

quote:

Well under the old rules stacking with these nations requires you to be allied with them and at war with Britain. You also are not allowed to loan anyone corps or leaders except under the peace consition.

My point exactly. If GB does not DoW france, france can't lend corps/leaders to GB's opponents (unless FR wants to give up the 5 pps for the DoW himself.

And yes, that is would exactly my strategy as FR if GB DoW'd me - ally with and aid anyone GB attacks (like i said, I can attack them for pp.s, but not anyone else)

quote:

Sea movement can also be doubled and you are talking about a 7 move over the sea zones (which themselves are large) -v- a 4 over land. Yes withdrawl into the interior can work but some minors then are left open. I actually want to try my strategies against several people here! I am most eager for battle!

yes, but moving 14 sea-areas will do you no good at all once all the fleets are parked in safe ports.

If you think you can move *ARMIES* 14 areas before the enemy has time to react (like the FR can move 8 before the enemy can react), that won't work. After the first naval phase, your enemies will see you've moved and react somewhat. With limited sea movement, major invasions could only go 4 areas so it was more limited, but i don't think matrix included that.

Sure, you can still move your army faster by sea than the FR can keep up by land, but the FR *don't* have to keep up by land. They don't need the whole army. All they need is 2-3 corps and a great FR leader (which can appear on any corps any turn). So a few well positioned FR corps here and there can watch the GB invasion forces race all around the board all they want, and still be in 2-3 turns of whacking them no matter where they land (in the pr/au/sp theater of war, of course).

Any army in the game has usually greater mass than teh GB army, the one thing that gives the Brits the edge is greater morale and leadership. And the arrival of FR corps and leaders seriously eats away a lot of that edge. GB can't afford to fight even fights against greater mass.

As far as retreat into the interior goes, don't imagine that your enemies have to wholesale abandon areas so that you can plunder all their minors un-opposed. All they have to do is pull back 1 area from the coast (so wellington can not land on them) - then pull back maybe one turn, possibly 2 (until FR corps and leaders arrive --- there's very few sp/pr/au areas that the FR can't reach in 3 turns if fully supplied by their hosts).

In that time, you may have conquered 1-2 minors, sure. But you'll lose them just as quickly once the large armies pull into sight (GB's army just can't bring enough people into the field)

So you'll end up with a net gain of zero unless you risk a field battle against FR-supplemented and led armies (which GB can not do for long, as you just can't replace the losses fast enough)

So again - I don't like the fact that GB and FR can go to peace more easily than the HARSH unconditionals listed in the EiA rules, but if they *DO* allow it, I as GB would never be the one to DoW France afterwards

Maybe if the game is any good, we can set up a pbem game where I am FR and you are GB, and we can put these ideas to the test... : )

After all, everything we've written back and forth applies to FR/GB *before* surrender also, so we could try it out all game long if we never got a surrender out of the other.

interested?

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 37

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 2:06:34 AM

yammahoper

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline

Limit of 4 sea spaces was an optional rule (sea movement was reduced by one hex to a minimum of four per corp carried over X, I forget the particulars. We used it once then dropped it).

In the board game, you cannot ally with a nation for one year after the end of a war or the breaking of a treaty. Thus Fr would not be able to support a nation it just defeated if GB wants to then attack it. By the rules, access can only be granted to an ally, though I have played with some who house ruled that to access can be granted to anyone with permission. This rule prevents such abuse as GB sailing its army in a port, be it major or minor, without permission, so it will not lose the army by failing to disembark, but GB wants to be able to set sail and continue with the army, which requires a port. Likewise, major powers cannot just take a shortcut through another nations territory, or try to hide in superior defensive terreign in a minors territory.

The French are not all powerful. Considering the average 10vp an eco phase needed to win, I am not surprised that I have only seen france win in the hands of our best players, while even our average players could win with russia and GB. France has to be a masterful player to avoid the often inevitable coalition against it AND to stagger wars out to stay on the high end of the political status sheet.

If this game is half the board game, it will still be exceptional. I have seen some wild stuff happen, all of it fun, from the fight the brits couldnt lose but managed to throw three ones against three sixes by the turk, to 50 spanish factors obliterating 20 french factors under Davout and Davout being captured, to the might Au gaining control of Sweden and a few game years later pronging the poor russian from north and south, with his might navy of 21 ships and an inherient -1 mod to its die rolls beating back the full russian navy, blockading the port, then the swedes taking the city and causing the scuttling of the russian navies, the death of Napolean and Wellington in the same battle and the use of those three six sided dice for target practice the same day...this is a great game.

However, I do agree Fr and GB should start at war and only be able to surrender via unconditional, with or with out the mandatory picks required in the table top version (unconditional access and remove two fleets are what the french demand, with one option left for them to choose, while the brits demand the removal of Napolean...one neat rule from the table top game, to remove a leader, all nations involved in the peace had to pick that option, and I have seen GB left hanging when his allies balk and want other conditions...unless GB payed them).

Now, it has been many years since I played EiA, so if I miscall any of the old rules, please forgive me.

yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 38

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 2:09:50 AM

JavaJoe

Posts: 546
Joined: 9/12/2005
Status: offline

Nothing stops you from making a house rule that requires GB and France must select XYZ unconditonal conditions.

The program doesn't enforce this but that doesn't stop the players from enforcing it. When forming up games I'm pretty sure that when playing human opponents (the best AI I've ever seen) that 1 player will be France and 1 player GB. An agreement can be reached to help resolve that issue.

_____________________________

Vice President Jersey Association Of Gamers
JerseyGamers.com

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 39

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 6:25:23 AM

timothy_stone

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

Limit of 4 sea spaces was an optional rule (sea movement was reduced by one hex to a minimum of four per corp carried over X, I forget the particulars. We used it once then dropped it).

In the board game, you cannot ally with a nation for one year after the end of a war or the breaking of a treaty.

you can't ally for 1 year after breaking an alliance, there is no such limit after ending a war.

the fleets speed was reduced by 1 for carrying corps (any number), but also for each extra fleet counter, so sizable invasion fleets reduced to 4.

(in reply to yammahoper)

Post #: 40

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 7:23:37 AM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

Limit of 4 sea spaces was an optional rule (sea movement was reduced by one hex to a minimum of four per corp carried over X, I forget the particulars. We used it once then dropped it).

In the board game, you cannot ally with a nation for one year after the end of a war or the breaking of a treaty.
*snip*

you can't ally for 1 year after breaking an alliance, there is no such limit after ending a war.

Yes there is - enforced peace. It is a default of 12 mo for conditional and 18 mo for unconditional although there are peace conditions that allow the victor to extend it.

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 41

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 7:59:05 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

Im bit puzzled by the new AAR-Ralegh !

What new rules allows the Austrian Insurrection corps out of the restricted zones ???

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 11/29/2007 8:25:42 PM >

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 42

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 10:16:15 AM

Adraeth

Posts: 400
Joined: 9/24/2007
From: Italy - near Florence
Status: offline

As i see the third AAR (fra vs aut) i regret that the AI choosed a bad attack and suffered a disastrous defeat... why to attack in Mountains with John (1-1-1)?

Does Charles was in Italy i hope?

I think in this case the AI behaved recklessly....

_____________________________

www.histwar.fr/
---
Periods i like: age of muskets, napoleonics, modern combat.

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 43

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 1:21:13 PM

DerekP

Posts: 60
Joined: 3/1/2004
Status: offline

Totally agree.

If you're going to post AARs it helps if they show how good the game is not how incompetent the AI is. Attacking at less than 1:1 odds into a mountain pass is not smart from any AI in any game. OK this might just be a "forced" example but it doesn't engender much confidence.

After the debacle of the first AAR with GB defeating France in a few months I'll be holding my CC back until theres some more feedback from others.

(in reply to Adraeth)

Post #: 44

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 1:27:54 PM

jamo262

Posts: 82
Joined: 4/21/2003
From: Perth Australia
Status: offline

Im wondering what froces France historically used to guard it's borders whilst Nappy was away conquoring europe.

I seems GB can just waltz across the channel whenever it likes.

I know he kept Augerau in Brest for a while but what forces weremustered against the Walcheron Island expidition?

Apart from the mosquitoes of course!

Maybe a garrison corps on Lille should have the ability to block use of the straight- but I dont like that idea.

Perhaps France can call up Garrisons in each city if the home land is invaded equal to the number of spires on each province capital.

I have seen one game varient where this is done for every city on the board at the start.

I guess we can see why Nappy kept the spanish campaign going as he did as it tied down the British army.

Imagine running into Russia with a full strength British army only a couple of turns from paris at his back.

(in reply to Adraeth)

Post #: 45

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 3:12:41 PM

timothy_stone

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

Limit of 4 sea spaces was an optional rule (sea movement was reduced by one hex to a minimum of four per corp carried over X, I forget the particulars. We used it once then dropped it).

In the board game, you cannot ally with a nation for one year after the end of a war or the breaking of a treaty.
*snip*

you can't ally for 1 year after breaking an alliance, there is no such limit after ending a war.

Yes there is - enforced peace. It is a default of 12 mo for conditional and 18 mo for unconditional although there are peace conditions that allow the victor to extend it.

enforced peace is not a barrier to alliance, you are mixing two concepts

and the enforced peace is 18 months regardless of peace type, though the victor can extend it (one way, the victors restrictions don't change but the loser's do) to 24 months (conditional victory pick) or 36 months (u.c. victory pick)

the rules can be read online at http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiarules-with-errata.html

(in reply to jamo262)

Post #: 46

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 3:18:18 PM

timothy_stone

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adraeth Montecuccoli

As i see the third AAR (fra vs aut) i regret that the AI choosed a bad attack and suffered a disastrous defeat... why to attack in Mountains with John (1-1-1)?

Does Charles was in Italy i hope?

I think in this case the AI behaved recklessly....

Hey, can someone post a link to the 3rd AAR? I can't find it

Edit: never mind, it's linked from teh front page now at:

http://www.matrixgames.com/features/eianwaar/battle/eianwbattle_page1.asp

and the game A.I. is looking *disastrously* bad, with the austrians attacking a superior force, giving up +1/-1 dice modifiers and attacking a mountain position, all with Napoleon right next to them waiting to reinforce....

a bit disheartening

< Message edited by timothy_stone -- 11/29/2007 4:14:19 PM >

(in reply to Adraeth)

Post #: 47

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 7:00:35 PM

Killerduck

Posts: 16
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline

EiA is (one of) the most complicated board games ever published.

You can attack your opponents money, manpower, political status or victory points (if you are GB). Also, all nations are different in almost every aspect. What is a winning strategy for France, is most likely a suicide for everyone else.
Who is enemy could, and will, change.
Smart people who have played EiA quite a bit make stupid moves. It's a complicated game.

This might seem a bit extreme, but imho, the time this project has been going on is not long enough for the programmers to play this game very well (unless they play a lot!

. What can you expect from the AI?

If you want to play against computer, there are good news. All nations arent equal. You can try a weaker nation for more challenge (can you say Turkey?).

Personally, I will play the game on PBEM and against computer. I know I will enjoy human opponents much more, but sharpening my claws on AI is good practise

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 48

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 7:49:17 PM

Odysseus

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

Actually, I'm not too worried about the AI yet (though some Ralegh comments on all of the above would be interesing, just to get his perspective). Really, you have to take the fog of war into account here - what the Austrian player is seeing is his 4 corps against the 2 French ones. He cannot possibly know that they are almost full, meaning that the fight could just as well have been against half that strength, for all Austria knows. Also, he could have calculated with at least attriting the French forces at before that big evil Napolean stack gets closer (and he sure did have the militia to waste), in which case the move was a fairly rational fighting retreat kind of thing - meaning that the player might have been aware that the chances of winning were slim, but that the move was worth it for other reasons. Without knowing what the rest of the board looks like, we can't tell for sure.

The rest of that battle is the result of bad drawing of chits and dice rolls, and that can happen to anyone.

Anyway, I'm certainly waiting eagerly for any PBEM challenge coming my way! O, am I ever! Happy days are here again!

(in reply to Killerduck)

Post #: 49

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/29/2007 11:57:08 PM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

Hey Odysseus - great guess!

I wish I was smart enough to explain the right things before people ran away with assumptions.

Much of the Austrian army was way out of position, and they needed a bit of time - I didn't mention it, but they were at war with Turkey when I attacked. I reckon lots of human players would get John to throw some militia away to get a look at the French and slow their advance. If John had outpicked Davout, then in the next month he would have been defending in the mountains - and I am pretty sure that is what the AI was hoping for. And a few risks are worth taking with trash corps for Austria to stand a chance against France.

On the other issues in this thread, part of the strategic interest in EIA is becaue of the different situations different countries are in, and EIANW dows reflect that pretty faithfully (cant re-ally within 12 months of breaking an alliance//changed french/british movement order//britain and france needing lots of PP ...)

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Odysseus)

Post #: 50

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 12:33:54 AM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

I am not convinced enough that the AI was playing out this way. Was it just tempted to attack whatever was close enough to it or in its way? (Remember how the AI - in COG - keeps attacking with the same inferior numbers till winnowing to the bare minimum through being captured, as long as your force gets in its way.)

I like your illustration by the way. *(^.^)*

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 51

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 9:29:04 AM

timothy_stone

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

Hey Odysseus - great guess!

I wish I was smart enough to explain the right things before people ran away with assumptions.

Much of the Austrian army was way out of position, and they needed a bit of time - I didn't mention it, but they were at war with Turkey when I attacked. I reckon lots of human players would get John to throw some militia away to get a look at the French and slow their advance. If John had outpicked Davout, then in the next month he would have been defending in the mountains - and I am pretty sure that is what the AI was hoping for. And a few risks are worth taking with trash corps for Austria to stand a chance against France.

On the other issues in this thread, part of the strategic interest in EIA is becaue of the different situations different countries are in, and EIANW dows reflect that pretty faithfully (cant re-ally within 12 months of breaking an alliance//changed french/british movement order//britain and france needing lots of PP ...)

Hi guys -
that explanation of the AI's choice seems a little bit... optimistic

first off, yes players would want to slow the FR advance - that is NOT done by sacrificing your army

if he really needed to find out what FR had there, a 1-mil corps could have done the same thing at only a -1pp cost. As it is, he's lost 2 pp.s and now faces the entire FR army with only 17 factors remaining, meaning barring disastrous chits&rolls, he will be vaporized. Then there is absolutely nothing between the G. Armee and Vienna.

it's also given FR +3 pp.s for free

and Oh, look - when Napoleon and the whole Armee vaporise what's left of John's stack, that's another +3pps (+6 fr, -4 Au, almost enough to match a conditional surrender)

thinking 'hey if i beat davout i can be defending in the mountains' is again, optimistic.
If you attack superior morale, give them +1/-1 against you *and* the mountain modifier.... you just don't have much chance of winning, so it's not a good idea to base your plan on that. If he really wanted to defend in the mountains, he could have just gone to the Salzburg area (where he retreated to) without giving up the losses and pp.s

the very idea that you need to 'examine' the FR forces is a little thin, seeing as it is the main Davout/Napoleon stack, so you can pretty much assume it's got the heavies...

And it's no good saying 'oh, they were trash corps' - there's *9* cav there, and they will lose all of them. 9cav and 12i is a lot of cash, not counting 36 factors of manpower.

especially with charles off chasing Turks, who's going to keep vienna safe?

I realize it's an incredibly complex game to try to program, but some effort needed to be put in teaching the AI to evaluate odds of victory and also teach it the principles of screening Vienna (and thinking more than just one battle, but what happens to my stack *after* this battle... - do i get overwhelmed, isolated with no forage, is there a better way -- namely picking an important defensive location..)

I'm not saying that these have not been programmed in,
just that what the AI has shown in these reports have been repeated blunders for the AI.

(e.g. this iffy attack, the FR surrender to a tiny GB corps in paris, the turks abandoning Egypt)

Are you showing us only your highlights where you have crushed the AI?

Perhaps if you show us some AAR's where the AI's skills are highlighted instead of the Beta Testers, Matrix would garner more sales.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 52

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 10:09:17 AM

Adraeth

Posts: 400
Joined: 9/24/2007
From: Italy - near Florence
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

Hey Odysseus - great guess!

I wish I was smart enough to explain the right things before people ran away with assumptions.�

Much of the Austrian army was way out of position, and they needed a bit of time - I didn't mention it, but they were at war with Turkey when I attacked.� I reckon lots of human players would get John to throw some militia away to get a look at the French and slow their advance. If John had outpicked Davout, then in the next month he would have been defending in the mountains - and I am pretty sure that is what the AI was hoping for. And a few risks�are worth taking with trash corps for Austria to stand a chance against France.�

On the other issues in this thread,�part of the strategic interest in EIA is becaue of the different situations different countries are in, and EIANW dows reflect that pretty faithfully (cant re-ally within 12 months of breaking an alliance//changed french/british movement order//britain and france needing lots of PP ...)

Thanks Ralegh now i understand, and i see forward to play this game with fun

_____________________________

www.histwar.fr/
---
Periods i like: age of muskets, napoleonics, modern combat.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 53

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 3:23:48 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Though no AI is a substitute for a good human player, it's worth keeping in mind that Ralegh is not only a veteran tester, he's also an excellent player. Back when he was involved in COG testing, he was regularly annihilating the AI on settings much higher than the rest of us could survive at, hence his "Ralegh guides" to teach the rest of the public what he'd learned.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Adraeth)

Post #: 54

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 4:26:28 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Well I think we all have experienced some "brilliant" AI over the years, so did anyone really think that the AI for this very complicated game would be an actual challenge? I have never played the boardgame but have a copy, so I am sure I will appreciate the AI as a learning tool, but this game will really demand a group of players to shine imo.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 55

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 4:32:40 PM

JavaJoe

Posts: 546
Joined: 9/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Well I think we all have experienced some "brilliant" AI over the years, so did anyone really think that the AI for this very complicated game would be an actual challenge? I have never played the boardgame but have a copy, so I am sure I will appreciate the AI as a learning tool, but this game will really demand a group of players to shine imo.

Without a doubt Arinvald. No AI can compare to a cut throat human. This game does give the option to use the AI to cover for the player that drops out or is on vacation or just doesn't care enough to continue. That makes it worthy.

_____________________________

Vice President Jersey Association Of Gamers
JerseyGamers.com

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 56

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 4:38:49 PM

Monadman

Posts: 2085
Joined: 12/6/2005
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

The EiANW AI has climbed from the depths of pitiful (a few months ago) to the status of tutorial at its current �hard� level but it is morphing as Marshall continually adds new algorithms. Not surprising to most, but the strength of this game is with human v. human play.

Richard

_____________________________

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 57

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 6:54:00 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I must support and reemphasize what Richard is saying. I don't think the AI will ever be able to replace the human ability to betray / deceive and let's face it - that's the beauty of this game. At the end of the day for the AI, it's a mathematical problem (i.e. Paris is more valuable than Brest so goto Paris).

I will constantly try to better the chit selections, battle locations, force building, etc. BUT these things only happen after the deceit / betrayal phase.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 58

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 6:59:12 PM

Odysseus

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
the very idea that you need to 'examine' the FR forces is a little thin, seeing as it is the main Davout/Napoleon stack, so you can pretty much assume it's got the heavies...

Yes, you can...and probably any other fairly experienced human player can. But how can you expect that from a computer? No, bear in mind that I have absolutely no experience coding AIs, but that notwithstanding, it seems a bit overly optimistic to assume that a computer could actually make accurate estimates - based only on where leaders are placed and the corps compostion of the stacks.

My example was provided to give insight into how a player could think and rationalize that move, mostly to show that the AI might, in at least some respects, mimic player behaviour pretty well, even if it isn't the most competent player behaviour.

Going up 4 Au corps against 2 French, hoping that Nap won't be able to reinforce, for the *only* reasonable chance to kill off some French troops before the 800 lbs gorilla stands outside Vienna and you *definitely* have no chance of even putting dirt on their uniforms, seems not unreasonable to me...only slightly desperate, which is a far from unusual situation to be in in this game

.

That said, I can't say that I've seen enough of the AI to draw any conclusions yet - we haven't really seen any consistencies in its moves, have we? In Egypt it withdrew. In Austria it attacked, meaning that it doesn't just always attack whatever happens to be within reach. If anything, the lack of consistency seems promising - it's the predicable AI's I find boring.

Personally, as long as this AI is better than HoI2, I'm going to be happy...

(in reply to timothy_stone)

Post #: 59

RE: AAR - Ralegh - 11/30/2007 7:28:53 PM

JavaJoe

Posts: 546
Joined: 9/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odysseus

quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
the very idea that you need to 'examine' the FR forces is a little thin, seeing as it is the main Davout/Napoleon stack, so you can pretty much assume it's got the heavies...

Yes, you can...and probably any other fairly experienced human player can. But how can you expect that from a computer? No, bear in mind that I have absolutely no experience coding AIs, but that notwithstanding, it seems a bit overly optimistic to assume that a computer could actually make accurate estimates - based only on where leaders are placed and the corps compostion of the stacks.

My example was provided to give insight into how a player could think and rationalize that move, mostly to show that the AI might, in at least some respects, mimic player behaviour pretty well, even if it isn't the most competent player behaviour.

Going up 4 Au corps against 2 French, hoping that Nap won't be able to reinforce, for the *only* reasonable chance to kill off some French troops before the 800 lbs gorilla stands outside Vienna and you *definitely* have no chance of even putting dirt on their uniforms, seems not unreasonable to me...only slightly desperate, which is a far from unusual situation to be in in this game .

That said, I can't say that I've seen enough of the AI to draw any conclusions yet - we haven't really seen any consistencies in its moves, have we? In Egypt it withdrew. In Austria it attacked, meaning that it doesn't just always attack whatever happens to be within reach. If anything, the lack of consistency seems promising - it's the predicable AI's I find boring.

Personally, as long as this AI is better than HoI2, I'm going to be happy...

An experienced EiA player can beat the AI. Although I've played for months now and I've never been beaten as France. (OK onetime I rebooted the game because no measly AI will beat me as an experienced EiA player and I need to keep that facade intact

ok, ok maybe more than once but I was testing...honest!)
A player using this as a vehicle to play against other players with the game EiA as the paint job, will find that it ain't a bad ride. It gives you a chance to keep the flow moving should a player drop, it follows the rules of an extremely complicated game whose rules are not the best written thing around....(Empires in Arguements comes to mind) Overall you'll find that it is worth the investment. Unless of course if you play against me then you'll hate it....

Glove slapped across the collective faces of EiANW opponents...

_____________________________

Vice President Jersey Association Of Gamers
JerseyGamers.com

(in reply to Odysseus)

Post #: 60