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: Please include in patch!!!

 
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: Please include in patch!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 2:23:41 AM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
In your example;

MACK 134A would retain command of the force at all times as he is a NAMED LEADER with the highest Seniority, then Charles 446B (and 2 Corps), then Wellington 553B (with 1 Corps) and then a Purssian Corps Commander (111D)

At least based on my previous experience; In EIANW, it would depend how the Allied force was created but MACK would be in charge if this was EIA or EIH.


(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 61
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 2:29:03 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Consistency -- such as applying the majority-corps rule always, even to the phasing player on multinational attacks -- would make sense.  There's still possible weirdnesses if not everybody is at war with the same nations, which is why the original EiA rules forced neutral nations to either declare war on the aggressor, or to move to an adjacent area (and that has a known loophole tactic involving allies with enforced peace).

One sample reason to not go the other way would be that France has decent leaders to spare, and a hypothetical Franco-Prussian alliance with most stacks being led by French leaders might be a bit ugly.  Likewise, it affects game balance if Wellington and Moore can easily be in command of large stacks provided by the land powers.


(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 62
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 2:46:30 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

In your example;

MACK 134A would retain command of the force at all times as he is a NAMED LEADER with the highest Seniority, then Charles 446B (and 2 Corps), then Wellington 553B (with 1 Corps) and then a Purssian Corps Commander (111D)

At least based on my previous experience; In EIANW, it would depend how the Allied force was created but MACK would be in charge if this was EIA or EIH.




It's actually not quite what i mean, I reasoned from how the game works right now and then Wellington would be in command during brittains phase, what puzzles me is what happens in France's phase.

I would however not mind an implemention where in this example Mack would be in command both in defence and attack (basicly based on seniority and then on number of corps).

Anyway thanks for your input.

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 63
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 3:01:39 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
 
quote:

There's still possible weirdnesses if not everybody is at war with the same nations, which is why the original EiA rules forced neutral nations to either declare war on the aggressor, or to move to an adjacent area (and that has a known loophole tactic involving allies with enforced peace).


I have a feeling that the program currently just ignore corps not at war, havent tested it yet though so take it with a grain of salt.

There is a small risk of exploiting the original EiA rules by walking in a corp from a power that is not at war with all the powers in the stack especially if it has enforced peace (but maybe this should be concidered a case of casus belli and allow a DoW even under enforced peace). I guess the ignore variant also could be somewhat exploited but only if your "not at war with all powers in the stack" army wins and routes part of the army and in practical terms splitting the coalition army and then let france move and attack the split army -  but is a bit harder to achieve in most circumstances.  

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 64
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 6:57:49 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
So what happens if, 6 Austrian corps and 4 Prussian corps are in the same space, Prussia does NOT loan it's corps, and France attacks?

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 65
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 10:05:41 PM   
KenClark

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
Hello all. I have been playing EiA for at least 15 years, with at least three significantly different gaming groups who all had slightly different rules interpretations. I understand that lots of people have different opinions and I respect them.

In this case, however, there is a critical game balance problem as the computer game is now played. The game balance problem is caused the lack of combined movement and shared political point gains/losses. The 'loan corps' feature is an attempt to correct what appears to be a problem with the difficulty in programming combined movement.

In every EiA game I have ever played, the goal as the 'at-start' alliance against France (Au/Pr always, usually with Russia, sometimes with Turkey) is to defeat France before it becomes an unstoppable monster. The reason this coalition always occurs is because France's counter density and leadership is much higher than the Allies'. An ideal full six-stack French army under Napoleon would be the Guard, the Artillery and Corps I-IV. This stack has a numerical strength of 20 Guard, 12 Artillery, 13 Cav or so and 90 Inf (there may be some error here), totall strength 135 or so. Morale is about 4.2

The Allies' best combined six-stack under Charles would be 2 Prussian, 2 Austrian and 2 Russian corps, containing the I-II corps of each nation. This has a strength of about 81 Infantry, 10 Guard and 10 Cavalry, totalling 101 factors. Nappy gets a +1 Charles gets a 0. Morale about 3.3

The Austrian best six-stack would have about 75I 5 Guard and 7 Cav, total 87 Factors) under Charles. Nappy gets a +1 Charles gets a 0. Morale about 3.2

The Prussian best six-stack has about 7 Guard, 75 I and 18 Cav (?) total 100 factors under Blucher. Nappy gets a +1 Blucher gets a 0. Morale about 3.4

Given the corps density, leadership and morale advantage, you would say that a 6-corps stack gives the French a 0.9 to 1.0 morale advantage, a 35% numbers advantage and a +1 die roll advantage. In fact, the French can pretty much get numerical parity and a 1.0 morale advantage using only 4 corps.

The French advantage of the +2 Guard, 1.0 morale and +1 die roll means that the French will win about 30% more battles on average than the Allies, and means that they will lose about half as many battles (with a much higher number of ties).

What does this mean politically?

On average, France will win 4 points for Nappy battles, whereas an allied stack will win 3. Given the 30% morale/leadership advantage this really turns out to be about 4.3 verus 2.7 for victories when normalized. Losing, France would lose 5 points 20% of the time whereas the Allies will lose 3 points 50% of the time. Again normalized this works out to be -1 to -1.5. So given equal stack corp numbers France on averave will gain 3.3 PP versus the Allies 1.2 when average losses are subtracted from average gains. Clearly this works out to France's advantage.

In the board game, on average, the Allies tactic for getting over this aparant advantage was twofold: Corps numbers and Splitting Forces. If a 3-country team attacks france they have about twice to 2.5 times the actual numbers of corps, which means that defending minor countries is difficult for France. This is a bit outside the scope of this thread. The Splitting Forces method takes advantage of the fact that under the EiA rules a defender only lost political points based on the number of its corps in the battle, instead of the total number of corps in the battle. As per the ideal stack above, if the Allies were to win the battle they would each get 3pp wheras if they lost they would only lose 1 pp each. Given the normalized math above, this brings down the differential by a factor of about 2.0 as the losses now cost 1/3 and the victories stay the same. You will see that the math then works out to a net difference of 3.3 to 3.2 France to Allies (roughly).

Now of course it's somewhat difficult to get the ideal 6-stack with 2 corps each. You would want to optimize your superstack by stacking 12 corps with Charles and 10 corps with Blucher/Kutuzov. This would still give France a +1 and the other countries a +0 for tactical rating but then gives the Allies a chance to get cav superiority which could bring the odds of getting a +1/+1 situation much higher. This also allows the corps number superiority to become more important as the French have to superstack themselves to avoid getting killed off by numbers alone. (this also makes the 4-corps per depot rule MUCH more important and which is why my groups ALWAYS played with the 4-corps-per-depot rule).

So the rough math in this post is meant to show that if you want combat to be balanced for the "allies", against the numerical and morale advantage that France has, you should employ some form of victory-point splitting mechanism. Otherwise France will always win barring extremely bad luck. This is especially the case as France can split its movement between the Allies (due to the no-combined movement issues) and thus catch them before they can combine. The loaning corps solution is a pretty good one, but it has to be combined with the splitting-VP option or else it's meaningless.

Don't get me started on the lack of 1-factor Militia screening corps and 5:1 trivial battles not being implemented, which is also needed to avoid France smashing everyone one at a time.

Ken



< Message edited by KenClark -- 1/11/2008 11:14:37 PM >

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 66
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 10:42:10 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
Well said Ken. I was unaware for some reason that trivial battles were not in. That's a bit of a disappointment too...

edit: Well dammit they are in the game manual!

< Message edited by Soapy Frog -- 1/11/2008 11:46:27 PM >

(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 67
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/11/2008 11:09:38 PM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
good post Ken

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 68
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/12/2008 6:02:45 AM   
Frank McNally

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 8/29/2003
Status: offline
In the original game did a corp loaned as a peace condition which loses cause PP effects on the loaner?  How about on the reciever?

Another problem of failing to have a true combined move is presumably one cannot use allied depots for supply, is there a way around that?  In my current EiA game GB supply of Russia was key in fighting France in Prussia.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 69
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/13/2008 4:47:43 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
Good post, but I have a couple of quibbles.

First, I agree that Au/Pr with GB bankrolling them, should try to get/hold off France. If they get Russia, all the better. But he usually is ALSO going for Sweden, and so when I play they get one stack and a good leader.

Secondly, I've NEVER seen Turkey go to war with France off the bat. This is the best time to:
--get the Ottoman Empire AND/OR
--wait a few months and then schwack AU when he's busy AND/OR
--hit Russia (least choice)

Usually, the Brits are funneling money to AU/PR to fight FR, bribing SP to come in (not a smart move for SP), and throwing RU some crumbs to the point that they don't have alot for TU. So that leaves FR to get money as TU.

Third, you added Blucher too early. I believe that he comes in in 1807 not 1805.

As the allies, we also usually had two "monster stacks" adjacent to each other

So, I think that this becomes a much different game with no combined movement, but with the crazy AI, I haven't seen FR do exceptionally well.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

Hello all. I have been playing EiA for at least 15 years, with at least three significantly different gaming groups who all had slightly different rules interpretations. I understand that lots of people have different opinions and I respect them.

In this case, however, there is a critical game balance problem as the computer game is now played. The game balance problem is caused the lack of combined movement and shared political point gains/losses. The 'loan corps' feature is an attempt to correct what appears to be a problem with the difficulty in programming combined movement.

In every EiA game I have ever played, the goal as the 'at-start' alliance against France (Au/Pr always, usually with Russia, sometimes with Turkey) is to defeat France before it becomes an unstoppable monster. The reason this coalition always occurs is because France's counter density and leadership is much higher than the Allies'. An ideal full six-stack French army under Napoleon would be the Guard, the Artillery and Corps I-IV. This stack has a numerical strength of 20 Guard, 12 Artillery, 13 Cav or so and 90 Inf (there may be some error here), totall strength 135 or so. Morale is about 4.2

The Allies' best combined six-stack under Charles would be 2 Prussian, 2 Austrian and 2 Russian corps, containing the I-II corps of each nation. This has a strength of about 81 Infantry, 10 Guard and 10 Cavalry, totalling 101 factors. Nappy gets a +1 Charles gets a 0. Morale about 3.3

The Austrian best six-stack would have about 75I 5 Guard and 7 Cav, total 87 Factors) under Charles. Nappy gets a +1 Charles gets a 0. Morale about 3.2

The Prussian best six-stack has about 7 Guard, 75 I and 18 Cav (?) total 100 factors under Blucher. Nappy gets a +1 Blucher gets a 0. Morale about 3.4

Given the corps density, leadership and morale advantage, you would say that a 6-corps stack gives the French a 0.9 to 1.0 morale advantage, a 35% numbers advantage and a +1 die roll advantage. In fact, the French can pretty much get numerical parity and a 1.0 morale advantage using only 4 corps.

The French advantage of the +2 Guard, 1.0 morale and +1 die roll means that the French will win about 30% more battles on average than the Allies, and means that they will lose about half as many battles (with a much higher number of ties).

What does this mean politically?

On average, France will win 4 points for Nappy battles, whereas an allied stack will win 3. Given the 30% morale/leadership advantage this really turns out to be about 4.3 verus 2.7 for victories when normalized. Losing, France would lose 5 points 20% of the time whereas the Allies will lose 3 points 50% of the time. Again normalized this works out to be -1 to -1.5. So given equal stack corp numbers France on averave will gain 3.3 PP versus the Allies 1.2 when average losses are subtracted from average gains. Clearly this works out to France's advantage.

In the board game, on average, the Allies tactic for getting over this aparant advantage was twofold: Corps numbers and Splitting Forces. If a 3-country team attacks france they have about twice to 2.5 times the actual numbers of corps, which means that defending minor countries is difficult for France. This is a bit outside the scope of this thread. The Splitting Forces method takes advantage of the fact that under the EiA rules a defender only lost political points based on the number of its corps in the battle, instead of the total number of corps in the battle. As per the ideal stack above, if the Allies were to win the battle they would each get 3pp wheras if they lost they would only lose 1 pp each. Given the normalized math above, this brings down the differential by a factor of about 2.0 as the losses now cost 1/3 and the victories stay the same. You will see that the math then works out to a net difference of 3.3 to 3.2 France to Allies (roughly).

Now of course it's somewhat difficult to get the ideal 6-stack with 2 corps each. You would want to optimize your superstack by stacking 12 corps with Charles and 10 corps with Blucher/Kutuzov. This would still give France a +1 and the other countries a +0 for tactical rating but then gives the Allies a chance to get cav superiority which could bring the odds of getting a +1/+1 situation much higher. This also allows the corps number superiority to become more important as the French have to superstack themselves to avoid getting killed off by numbers alone. (this also makes the 4-corps per depot rule MUCH more important and which is why my groups ALWAYS played with the 4-corps-per-depot rule).

So the rough math in this post is meant to show that if you want combat to be balanced for the "allies", against the numerical and morale advantage that France has, you should employ some form of victory-point splitting mechanism. Otherwise France will always win barring extremely bad luck. This is especially the case as France can split its movement between the Allies (due to the no-combined movement issues) and thus catch them before they can combine. The loaning corps solution is a pretty good one, but it has to be combined with the splitting-VP option or else it's meaningless.

Don't get me started on the lack of 1-factor Militia screening corps and 5:1 trivial battles not being implemented, which is also needed to avoid France smashing everyone one at a time.

Ken




(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 70
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/14/2008 12:20:29 AM   
baboune

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline
Yo,

Damn it!   is trivial combat not implemented also true ??

From the EIANW manual p78:
"Combats in which one side initially consists solely of garrison factors on a depot, Cossacks, freikorps
and/or guerillas not in cities must be resolved using trivial combat."

From the EiA errata http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/errata.html:
"Add the following rule:

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

Seems you are right! I havent tried it in game yet.  That is a pretty good rule!

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 71
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/14/2008 4:51:18 PM   
KenClark

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
quote:

First, I agree that Au/Pr with GB bankrolling them, should try to get/hold off France. If they get Russia, all the better. But he usually is ALSO going for Sweden, and so when I play they get one stack and a good leader.


Even more reason to have the 'loan corps' feature set so that there are shared political consequences.

quote:


Secondly, I've NEVER seen Turkey go to war with France off the bat. This is the best time to:
--get the Ottoman Empire AND/OR
--wait a few months and then schwack AU when he's busy AND/OR
--hit Russia (least choice)


I had never seen Turkey in on the fun for many years but one group I joined almost always had everyone except Spain gang up on France at the start. France would quickly conditional out to 1 or 2 parties (often Turkey and Russia) and then fight on. It does make some sense if you believe France has to be reduced early. Personally, I often play Turkey and probably wouldn't do this as your main backer against GB is France, but YMMV.

quote:


Third, you added Blucher too early. I believe that he comes in in 1807 not 1805.
As the allies, we also usually had two "monster stacks" adjacent to each other


As the Allies if you really want to stall until Blucher comes in you can get pretty close by using screening corps (which do not appear to be implemented in EiANW). If you don't play with screening corps then you are right and Brunswick or Hoeloeh (can't spell it today) are going to get beaten up a lot.

The two monster stacks adjacent to one another is a great strategy as well because if you are attacked, you can choose whether you want to reinforce or not (yes if you picked the right chit, no if you did not) to once again limit your PP damage due to fighting. This once again allows the Allies numerical/economic superiority to be used to fight France's density, leadership and morale advantage.

Ken

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 72
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/14/2008 5:09:11 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
In the orginal EiA Blucher joins the Prussian OOB in Feb 1806

In EiH v5.1 (I think), Blucher joins the OOB in 1807, and there seems to be some special rules around his appearance, but I cannot rememeber the details. Also, I could not find them on a quick search.

So, KenClark is right from his prespective, as EiA was the primary game version he played I bet.

iamspamus is referring to EiH (v.??) rules, and in that version, he would be correct.

Please be careful when correcting others that you identify the versions of rules you are referring to.

There is quite a lot of differences between EiA, EiA with optional rules, EiA with additional rules, EiH v.3, 4, 5, 5.1 and 5.2 and EIANW v1.0.0

(in reply to KenClark)
Post #: 73
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/14/2008 10:10:51 PM   
megalomania2003

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Secondly, I've NEVER seen Turkey go to war with France off the bat. This is the best time to:
--get the Ottoman Empire AND/OR
--wait a few months and then schwack AU when he's busy AND/OR
--hit Russia (least choice)



I did this once. GB was stingy with money to Pr (whom as a consequence went to the dark side) so I pursuaded Spain to go to war with France and did so myself as well (as Turkey) - price: Money, Time to form Ottoman Empire in peace from the others (GB, SP, AU, RU) and with the time it took to form it Austria did not have time for a war before the next round with France.

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 74
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/15/2008 7:58:07 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
So hang on I am confused here, is this quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Ralegh
P4. Why lend a unit to an ally? So the unit can move in their turn: this is the only way to achieve that in EIANW. Note also that such a unit could be used against an enemy you are not at war with (example: while remaining neutral, Spain lends all her fleets to France, who uses them against the British)


accurate or out of date?

From this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1609122

(in reply to megalomania2003)
Post #: 75
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/16/2008 12:34:23 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
Whether EIA or EIH, my point was at the beginning of the game Blucher was not available. That was all I was saying. In his analysis, he had two stacks of Charles and Blucher. My point was this is not the case in the first war.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

In the orginal EiA Blucher joins the Prussian OOB in Feb 1806

In EiH v5.1 (I think), Blucher joins the OOB in 1807, and there seems to be some special rules around his appearance, but I cannot rememeber the details. Also, I could not find them on a quick search.

So, KenClark is right from his prespective, as EiA was the primary game version he played I bet.

iamspamus is referring to EiH (v.??) rules, and in that version, he would be correct.

Please be careful when correcting others that you identify the versions of rules you are referring to.

There is quite a lot of differences between EiA, EiA with optional rules, EiA with additional rules, EiH v.3, 4, 5, 5.1 and 5.2 and EIANW v1.0.0



(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 76
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/16/2008 1:53:03 AM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
iasmspamus, your specification "at the beginning of the game Blucher was not available" was not clear to me when I read your first post.

I re-read KenClark's post and he did mention the _at-start_ war so........MY BAD!

Are we still friends?  Or will it be pistols at 10 paces?

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 77
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/16/2008 2:00:39 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
You sound like a (Napoleonic) Frenchie, so as a loyal Russian it's death at dawn!

As I said before, Suvarov is my favorite leader of the Napoleonic period. This would be followed by Kutusov, then Blucher and then Davout. Great time period.

Ciao!
Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

iasmspamus, your specification "at the beginning of the game Blucher was not available" was not clear to me when I read your first post.

I re-read KenClark's post and he did mention the _at-start_ war so........MY BAD!

Are we still friends?  Or will it be pistols at 10 paces?


(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 78
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/16/2008 3:37:10 AM   
oldtimer

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
Remember one important variation between the boardgame and the computer version. In the board game two or more allied nations could do a combined move. Another words the nations involved would ALL move at the same time, conduct any battles at the same time, etc.

It sounds like loaned corp move in the turn that the receiving nation moves while the loaner can move during their own turn any remaining corp they have. This is a MAJOR variation the the board game and because of technical limitations seemed to be the only means of working combined moves. As a victory condition a nation could take a corp on loan from the losing nation but had to return the corp if more then half of its starting factors (time of loan) are destroyed, after 12 months, or earlier if the receiving nation choose to do so.


To answer the question about if two different nations are in a stack and a third nation attacks. It depends. If the attacking nation is at war with both nations than both defending nations would defend. If a leader belonging to each defending nation was present the nations leader with the MOST corp would command, if both defending nations had equal corp the highest rated leader would command, if leader ratings are the same then the defending nations would choose.
Second possibility if one of the two nations defending was not at war with the defending nation then there corp would be ignored. I don't believe the neutral nation has an option to DOW at this point like they would in a naval transport situation.

Speaking of which... I believe I read in Marshalls 1.01 patch notes that he is implementing attacking a neutral fleet transporting enemy corp incorrectly. He states I believe that if you have Neutral Spain transporting French corp and Britain chooses to intercept the Spanish fleet that Britain would have to declare war on Spain to do so. This is contrary to the board game rules. Britain could attack the Spanish fleet transporting the French corp and SPAIN has the OPTION to DOW Britain even if at an enforced peace. The defender would be charged the PP cost NOT the attacker.

(in reply to iamspamus)
Post #: 79
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/16/2008 4:12:14 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
"This is contrary to the board game rules. Britain could attack the Spanish fleet transporting the French corp and SPAIN has the OPTION to DOW Britain even if at an enforced peace. The defender would be charged the PP cost NOT the attacker. "

I would very much prefere this implementation, however the discreptance i imagine comes from the game engines limitation to deny any attempt to attack someone who you are not at war with. Something that i imagine is very hard to work around - there is an alternative compromise that might be more fair; to allow Britain in this example to DOW without PP cost.

Vaguely related to this topic

We often used a house rule regarding access to neutral major powers, we thought it was unrealistic to disallow an army to enter a neutral major power, its not like its a massive wall around the border and its not like a local official even if he dared to stand in the armys way would be able to force an army to turn around.

To deal with this we used two different house rules.

1. Nothing stops you from entering a neutral major powers territory but each turn you do, or keep a corp inside such territory it costs you one political point for each major powers border you intrude.

2. At any time when a corp controlled by a major power enter your controlled territory its concidered casus belli and you can declare war at the controlling major power at no cost, this even if there is an enforced peace.

As you see, the penalty for violating someones border can be substantial, it was at least enough of a deterant to make it extremly unusual for someone to actually activate these rules. I think that concidering the current repatriation rules and some other silly scenarios, it might be worth to concider something similar in EiANW.    

(in reply to oldtimer)
Post #: 80
RE: Please include in patch!!! - 1/16/2008 4:23:24 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
We did that one too. I can't say as it happened. It was funny though, when France would tear up, say Austria, and then march around is country trying to get Austria to dow him. However, we didn't let the offending power place any depots.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

Vaguely related to this topic

We often used a house rule regarding access to neutral major powers, we thought it was unrealistic to disallow an army to enter a neutral major power, its not like its a massive wall around the border and its not like a local official even if he dared to stand in the armys way would be able to force an army to turn around.

To deal with this we used two different house rules.

1. Nothing stops you from entering a neutral major powers territory but each turn you do, or keep a corp inside such territory it costs you one political point for each major powers border you intrude.

2. At any time when a corp controlled by a major power enter your controlled territory its concidered casus belli and you can declare war at the controlling major power at no cost, this even if there is an enforced peace.

As you see, the penalty for violating someones border can be substantial, it was at least enough of a deterant to make it extremly unusual for someone to actually activate these rules. I think that concidering the current repatriation rules and some other silly scenarios, it might be worth to concider something similar in EiANW.    


(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 81
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Please include in patch!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.156