Where did the Cavalry Go!!!?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Where did the Cavalry Go!!!?

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 >> Where did the Cavalry Go!!!?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 6:05:37 PM

Grimrod42

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline

I looked in the forum and could find no mention of it eleswhere so I will post here.

Where did the cavalry go from the first 3 Russaisn corps go?
Was this done on purpose and if so why?

Post #: 1

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 6:39:25 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Indeed the corps stength changes seem odd. What happened to the Russian army?

(in reply to Grimrod42)

Post #: 2

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 7:12:53 PM

j-s

Posts: 76
Joined: 3/18/2003
From: Finland
Status: offline

Yes, they are odd.
I wonder if there is a list about new corps strengths. That would be great (and original corps strength back would be great, too)

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 3

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 10:08:02 PM

praem

Posts: 220
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline

It is the OOB of EiH.

Other changes are:
Janisary of Turkey has room for 3 cav!??
Spain lost 2 inf from most corps & 4 from some, and then gained some militia-corps
Austria and Prussia gained room for inf. in their guard/grenadier corps

The fleet strength are quite different - in EiA GB had 100, France incl. Holland had 64, Spain 57 and Russia 49. Now Spain 57 and Russia 35, while both France and GB gets a lot of extra ships

Dont know why these changes where done...

(in reply to j-s)

Post #: 4

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 10:20:03 PM

Grimrod42

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline

At first I thought that as well so I went to check it up

http://www.empiresinharm.com/oob/ru1802.pdf

and Russian OOB in 1802 is
I    18i 2 c
II    14i 1c
III    14i 2c

Pream do you have the link to where you found your info?

anyone have any idea why this was changed?

(in reply to praem)

Post #: 5

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 10:23:41 PM

praem

Posts: 220
Joined: 12/15/2007
Status: offline

I believe I saw on this forum somewhere that the OOB was lifted from EiH - didnt think to investegate further. If it isnt as you've shown, I dont know why it was done this way.

(in reply to Grimrod42)

Post #: 6

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 10:28:59 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

1805 OOB can be found here;

OOB Corps

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/countries.php

OOB Set-up

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/1805.html

OOB Info from EiH v4.x I believe

http://www.empiresinharm.com/oob.htm

< Message edited by AresMars -- 1/10/2008 10:30:53 PM >

(in reply to Grimrod42)

Post #: 7

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 10:38:01 PM

Grimrod42

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline

In the pc game
Russia has
I 16i
II 14i
III 14i

(in reply to AresMars)

Post #: 8

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/10/2008 10:42:49 PM

zaquex

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

The current implementation is a serious weakening of the military powers of russia compared to the original game where russia was concidered the 2nd most powererfull military power in the game. Here I think both Austria and Prussia is stronger.

The maximum effective russian army vs Napoleon is 8 corps one of these must be a cav corp or it has no cav at all, also the corps are smaller 14 compared to 20 for the first corp. I miss the first 3 Russian corps with cav alot.

Im also unsure about this variant of the turkish corps, with the limited numbers of corps that can carry inf who are essential to making garrisons etc I would rather have two pure inf corps like in the original game and the cav in the NC corp. There was someone commenting that for historical reasons it would be more correct if none of the turkish inf corps had cav and all the cav was in the IC corp. I would like that from a turkish playing perspective I beleive it would make turkey stronger and easier to play, although I have not seen any proof if it is more historical correct

(in reply to Grimrod42)

Post #: 9

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 12:26:34 AM

ecn1

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/9/2007
Status: offline

Yah, i noticed that too...it does seem that Russia's strength has been curtailed, and that its corps are inferior uncessarily compared to corps strengths in eia or eih...can we have some comments from the game designers/testers on why this may be?

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 10

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 4:13:14 AM

Monadman

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Yah, i noticed that too...it does seem that Russia's strength has been curtailed, and that its corps are inferior uncessarily compared to corps strengths in eia or eih...can we have some comments from the game designers/testers on why this may be?

The infantry corps come straight out of the EiH 3.0 OOB, which was what this game started out as some 4+ years ago when Michael Treasure was onboard. The V Cavalry Corps was later tweaked to make up for the change. Any specific questions concerning the why or why not would be for Michael Treasure to answer (where ever he is). Anyway, here�s a side by side for comparison.

Richard

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to ecn1)

Post #: 11

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 5:42:37 AM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Where did you get this lovely spreadsheet?

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 12

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 5:53:21 AM

zaquex

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

How does this translate if you compare EiA boardgame with EiANW?

The best army Russia can achieve on its own is by overstacking Kutosov to 8 corps this means: we want to avoid an easy cav advantage for France and if we win we want to take advantage of persuit so one corp needs to be a cav corp. The expected losses for a fight with a maximized Napoleon is probably in the area of about 20 casualties per battle segment thats 60 losses on average not counting persuit we obviously dont want to take expensive Guard or Cav factors factors so minimum 2-3 extra losses caused by artillery isnt really gonna make that much difference its probably better to be able to soak up more persuit losses and the artillery corp would also be expensive losses if it comes to that.

What does this leave us? I-III corp with 42 Inf one cav corp with 6 cav, Imperial Guard with 10 Guard and one cav and finaly we pad up the army with another 3 Inf corps for 30 more Inf.

42 I +30 I +10 G + 7 C = 89 factors 7 of wich are cav.

In the original EiA OOB you would get 102 of wich 6 is cav

In a case where you are not overstacking the relation would be:

48 factors of wich 7 is cav in EiANW

62 factors of wich 6 is cav in EiA

So in effect the russian army in battle formation is about one full corp weaker in EiANW than in EiA.

I dont know why the EiH 3.0 OOB been the base for developing EIANW ive heard a few say its the weakest EiH variant and the 4.0 variant seem to me more reasonable. I have however never played any of the EiH variants so i should really comment on the balance of the different EiH variants.

Its is however clear to me that the number you can have in an army is the most important factor to determine its efficiency and corp size together with leaders is what determines this. And to me it seems that Russia is the power that have got the shortest end of the stick in this implementation.

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 13

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 7:33:38 AM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

I agree, the Russian army already lacked "Density", the new OOB just compounds the problem.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 14

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 3:01:35 PM

zaquex

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

for next x-mas ill wish for a spelling program

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 15

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 4:41:50 PM

Grimrod42

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline

I see
but according the the Empires in Harm website that is not the Russian OOB
so there seems to be a discrepancy.

Would it be possible to move the EiANW more in line with the original game on this.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 16

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 9:19:27 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

Any specific questions concerning the why or why not would be for Michael Treasure to answer (where ever he is).

Stuff like this leaves newbies like myself wondering about the as-implemented design. I would assume there was a good basis for making the changes in EiH, and that later versions were "better" than earlier ones. Which begs the question, why was EiH 3.0 used and not 4.0 or 5.0? Curious too that Mike Treasure himself doesn't weigh in with comments on the game now that it's been released, or perhaps he has(?). I'm not looking for full explanations right now, but eventually some designer's notes for the computer version should be provided to explain the decisions made.

I expect once an editor is provided that different versions of the campaigns and scenarios will appear with various OOBs from either pure-EiA or pure-EiH or variations on the Matrix defaults. But again this begs a question, which set of OOBs and setups is the most historically correct? And shouldn't the Matrix defaults strive for that ideal??

(in reply to Grimrod42)

Post #: 17

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 10:54:28 PM

Monadman

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Any specific questions concerning the why or why not would be for Michael Treasure to answer (where ever he is).

Stuff like this leaves newbies like myself wondering about the as-implemented design. I would assume there was a good basis for making the changes in EiH, and that later versions were "better" than earlier ones. Which begs the question, why was EiH 3.0 used and not 4.0 or 5.0? Curious too that Mike Treasure himself doesn't weigh in with comments on the game now that it's been released, or perhaps he has(?). I'm not looking for full explanations right now, but eventually some designer's notes for the computer version should be provided to explain the decisions made.

I expect once an editor is provided that different versions of the campaigns and scenarios will appear with various OOBs from either pure-EiA or pure-EiH or variations on the Matrix defaults. But again this begs a question, which set of OOBs and setups is the most historically correct? And shouldn't the Matrix defaults strive for that ideal??

Well perhaps I should have also included Marshall in that sentence because he obviously knows the skinny on the why and why not, although, several EiA vets camping on his left nut for the last two years has brought this game closer to EiA then is was in 2005 and as I stated before; it is still a work in progress, but now we have a larger army of EiA connoisseurs to help with the continuing transition.

Richard

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 18

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/11/2008 10:59:27 PM

zaquex

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

EiA has in my oppinion first and most not been claiming to be historical, its first priority has always been balance something its pretty good at. It might be different for EiH but the 3.0 version is�VERY different from any other version ive seen.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 19

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/15/2008 9:21:29 PM

Grimrod42

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline

I think this should be fixed as a priority
The game was balanced as it was meant to be.

Michael Treasure is a good guy but I think the game should have been based on the original.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 20

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/15/2008 11:04:50 PM

Murat

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

EiH focuses on making the game more 'historical'. From what I recall EiH was anti-monster stacks. I am not the big OOB history buff but I seem to remember something about the Russian corps originally being organized without cav and only later on integrating some cav into certain units (1812 or so). THis may be why EiH 3.0 did this. People may have corrected it in later versions. Dunno. EiH changed naval as some other people have noted so several changes are in that may be open to reconsideration but try to keep play balance in mind.

(in reply to Grimrod42)

Post #: 21

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/16/2008 12:33:21 AM

zaquex

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

What i react against is that EiH seems to be the only version that dont allow any russian cav in the INF corps to me that implies that for some reason (may it be historical or play balance) this implementation didnt work well.

Therefore im a bit surprised that EiANW used this version as base for the computer game.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 22

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/16/2008 12:40:18 AM

ecn1

Posts: 132
Joined: 4/9/2007
Status: offline

To clarify even more, its an older version of EiH, rather than the latest version, that the oob is based upon....the Russian corps in the current version of eih all have intrinsic cav, and are larger in size....

so its not even a current version of eih

erik

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 23

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 1/16/2008 12:41:57 AM

zaquex

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

sorry i omited to add the version number by accident i meant to write EiH 3.0 and nothing else

(in reply to ecn1)

Post #: 24

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 2/15/2008 11:04:05 PM

bresh

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

OOB Info from EiH v4.x I believe

http://www.empiresinharm.com/oob.htm

That link seems to be expired.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to AresMars)

Post #: 25

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 2/16/2008 6:54:11 AM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

The Empires in HArm Yahoo group has the 4.0 and 5.x files IIRC.

The one thing I did like about EiH was that the OOB's are a lot more realistic, and the mechanism for incorporating them is pretty easy.

Thresh

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 26

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 2/18/2008 1:23:16 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

Guys, my response makes the situation "very simplistic". This is the overall, not down in the weeds of the discussion. here goes.

This comes down to a quibble that I have with the concept of EIA. Basically, before the French Revolution, you had huge armies fighting each other, thus these ponderous supply chains on specific axis of advance along "good" roads. Slow and steady. There were smaller units, but they didn't operate independently.

Ol' Nap switched it. He made "smaller" units (corps) that were able to advance on a wider front. They were able to forage more effectively because they did so over a wider area, thus doing away with the need for a slow supply chain. They could therefore move more quickly. Finally, they were made to be independent and hold out for a while, until the nearby corps could move in to support. With the monster stack issue in EIA, we don't see that. Don't know how it can be fixed.

This seems to me to be the opposite of early EIA, where French corps are bigger than the allies' corps. For Russia, in the early war they used these "temporary brigades", a hodge-podge of unit's hastily thrown together. Large and unweildly. (Think the precursor of the huge units used by them in comparison to the Brits and French in the Crimean War.) Anyway, They pretty much fought together as a blob and were thus able to be picked apart by the more nimble French corps system.

Then ol' Barclay came along in 1811 and remodeled the Russians along the French corps system, as most other countries did between 1809 and 1813. Now they had a true corps system, but were not as good as the French, who'd had a decade to perfect this idea. They also had poorer leadership, even though Suvarov and Kutusov are two of my favorite leades of the time.

So, in closing, I that the idea is that the corps are set up more for game balance rather than complete historicity. The Russians had lots of cav, so...

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

EiH focuses on making the game more 'historical'. From what I recall EiH was anti-monster stacks. I am not the big OOB history buff but I seem to remember something about the Russian corps originally being organized without cav and only later on integrating some cav into certain units (1812 or so). THis may be why EiH 3.0 did this. People may have corrected it in later versions. Dunno. EiH changed naval as some other people have noted so several changes are in that may be open to reconsideration but try to keep play balance in mind.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 27

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 2/18/2008 1:41:01 PM

Minedog

Posts: 52
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

The infantry corps come straight out of the EiH 3.0 OOB, which was what this game started out as some 4+ years ago when Michael Treasure was onboard.

So why wasn't the PC game title Empires in Harm then?
The game is advertised as Empires in Arms on PC, and really, it isn't..

< Message edited by Minedog -- 2/18/2008 1:42:48 PM >

(in reply to Monadman)

Post #: 28

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 2/18/2008 2:58:31 PM

bresh

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

Honestly sure it would be nice with the "right" corps.

But share of pp in involved battles, combined movement, for me counts more of a priority, For Russia.
Fun how noone complains about the Austrian and Prussian guard corps :)

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 2/18/2008 3:00:18 PM >

(in reply to Minedog)

Post #: 29

RE: Where did the Cavalry Go!!!? - 2/18/2008 4:20:56 PM

zaquex

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

At Borodino the 1st (Barclay) and 2nd Western (Bagration) Army under Kutosov meet Napoleon

I Corp had 28 Batallions 16 Squadrons of Cav, 3 Cossack Regements (15 Squadrons) and 9 Artillery Batterys
V Corp (Guards in reserve) 18 Grd Battalions 7 Grenadier Battallions 8 Grd Squadrons and 12 Squadrons of Currassiers and 6 grd Artillery bat.

The 4 Cav corps in the combined army had between 20 and 24 Cav Squadrons

In all there was 182 Squadrons of russian Cav at Borodino and 67 Batterys of Artillery with depending on the source 760-804 pieces (Russians had the biggest and best Artillery of all Nations at this time)

The combined Russian army is estimated to have been around 170 000 men strong in 8 inf Corps 4 Cav Corps and 27 Cossack rgt.

_____________________________

An Elephant

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 30