Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

MOST StupidEST-EST Rule!

 
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 >> Tech Support >> MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/22/2008 2:49:41 PM   
grimmerling

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline 		France has been able to leave 1 inf of garrison in Berlin. So i began besieging them. Last month France took last move attacking my stack in Berlin with one corps and loosing.
So now, during Diplomacy, the French garrison is still alive in Berlin, and my two Prussian corps are in the Berlin area. When I try to end Diplomacy the computer tells me "Berlin has fallen to France. You must sue France for peace!"
Is this some kind of bug? Or are you serious about it?
Post #: 1
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/22/2008 2:56:52 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline 		Think you need to share more information.
What month etc ? 
Where are you in stability zone, or whats its called, if you in fiasco you could be forced to accept surrender. Not sure.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to grimmerling)
Post #: 2
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/22/2008 3:16:21 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		I think what happened here is that France (By attacking your stack) lifted the siege. of Berlin. Although your units are in the area, they are not besieging Berlin anymore thus forcing you to surrender.

How long had the French garrison been in Berlin?

< Message edited by Marshall Ellis -- 1/22/2008 3:17:34 PM >

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 3
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/22/2008 6:59:50 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		It's not relevant is it?

There is no requirement to sue for peace just because Berlin is occupied. Is there? Tell me there isn't, Marshall.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 4
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/22/2008 7:05:10 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline 		Yes; this is rather important.

I know that the AI surrenders if its capitol falls (and players SHOULD SERIOUSLY consider it);
but is it an actual REQUIREMENT for PLAYERS?

The original EIA had a surrender requirement if the MP could "collect no HOME NATION manpower
(this was an optional alternative to complete extermination); but that is much MUCH harder than
just taking 1 city (even one as far away as Moscow)

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 5
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/22/2008 8:31:10 PM   
yammahoper

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline 		From what I have seen, you are required to sue for peace if your capital is occupied and unbesieged.  This has happened to me several times.  Each time I Sued but refused to accept an unconditional, and two out of three times the war continued, but once (as Pr), Fr offered a conditional and I lost the war.

On another occassion, after clicking I would accept an unconditional, Fr and Tu gave me a conditional, Tu an unconditional.

Lesson; protect your capital.

yamma

< Message edited by yammahoper@yahoo.com -- 1/22/2008 8:40:10 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 6
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/22/2008 8:37:32 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		... This is not in the game manual, and it is against the rules of EiA, and EiH.

It's also a massive blow to game balance. I don't think (or at least I hope not) it's even necessary to explain why.

Marshall please can we have the proper rules put in place?

(in reply to yammahoper)
Post #: 7
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 3:02:19 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline 		This would be a HUGE game-unbalancing rule, if it's really true. Prussia and Austria can get very easily hogtied by it. Several times Vienna or Berlin has fallen, only to see other allies take the French down (sometimes that same turn -- I wonder how the computer would handle THAT?)

On the other hand, Russia. Spain, and Great Britain have very little to fear.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 8
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 7:25:48 AM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		Well Spain is screwed too. It;s not THAT hard to take Madrid. And how can you fight a successful guerilla campaign if you are absolutely tied to defenidng Madrid?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 9
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 9:19:48 AM   
zaquex


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

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I think what happened here is that France (By attacking your stack) lifted the siege. of Berlin. Although your units are in the area, they are not besieging Berlin anymore thus forcing you to surrender.

How long had the French garrison been in Berlin?


That an attacking force can cancel the siege by just attacking is wrong, especially if it can be done by a single 1 factor militia corp. EiA rules says about limited field combat cause thats in my oppinion what it is whether or not any forces from the beseiged force is used:

quote:

"7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.

7.5.4.2.3.1.1: The surviving siege defenders return to the besieged city and the entire relieving force returns to the area from which it entered the siege area (returns to any one of the areas from which it entered, if more than one). If all siege defenders were eliminated, the city is captured.

7.5.4.2.3.1.2: There is no pursuit if the relieving force did not break, and, if it did break, only the relieving force may be pursued, not the siege defenders."


I also agree with all that says that the rule of forced surrender due to enemy occupation of your capital is wrong and inconsistent with EiA. You should lose your ability to collect tax and you should lose PP for having your capital occupied but you should not be required to surrender.

We also played with the rule that if you ever failed a economic loss roll in Fiasco Zone you where forced to sue for peace and forced to accept a conditional peace if offered. This as a variant of 10.5.1

quote:

"...If a major power would have been forced off the lower end of the display, then that major power must sue for peace during the next Peace Step with every major power at war with it (only a conditional surrender has to be accepted)"


We felt this was a reasonable rule to force new players to concider a conditional peace before they ruined any chance to come back later in the game.

Regards

zaq






< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/23/2008 10:40:12 AM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 10
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 6:15:00 PM   
Murat


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

ORIGINAL: zaquex
That an attacking force can cancel the siege by just attacking is wrong, especially if it can be done by a single 1 factor militia corp. EiA rules says about limited field combat cause thats in my oppinion what it is whether or not any forces from the beseiged force is used:

quote:

"7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.

7.5.4.2.3.1.1: The surviving siege defenders return to the besieged city and the entire relieving force returns to the area from which it entered the siege area (returns to any one of the areas from which it entered, if more than one). If all siege defenders were eliminated, the city is captured.

7.5.4.2.3.1.2: There is no pursuit if the relieving force did not break, and, if it did break, only the relieving force may be pursued, not the siege defenders."


I also agree with all that says that the rule of forced surrender due to enemy occupation of your capital is wrong and inconsistent with EiA. You should lose your ability to collect tax and you should lose PP for having your capital occupied but you should not be required to surrender.


attacking forces breaking the seiges is an original rule from EIA and EIH, forced surrender from capital occupation is not. I did get into a debate before release about the benefit of enforcing the Civil Disorder rule but many people were against that so maybe this was a compromise that just did not make it into the manual. It definitely channges strategies.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 11
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 6:21:17 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

... It;s not THAT hard to take Madrid. And how can you fight a successful guerilla campaign if you are absolutely tied to defenidng Madrid?

Have you ever actually TRIED to conquer Spain's capital? It's a lot harder than it looks. GB cannot even make the attempt, because she does not have enough depots and/or corps counters (you have to leave one in every square that is sufficient to kill any guerillas that appear). Also, the guerillas cannot be engaged. They cut supply without giving the enemy a chance to deal with them.

It's MIGHTY ugly. Only France can effectively pull it off, in my opinion, and then only because he has a supply source right next door to the border.

Anyhow, you are exactly correct in your other point: Spain's guerilla campaign is MUCH more effective if the enemy has to occupy all of Spain's provincial capitals. It cannot be done by ANY enemy, including France, without allies. There simply are too many spaces to cover.

So, in the board game, nations had to think long and hard over whether to go to war with Spain. GB could afford it, because she didn't care about conquest. Only the sinking of the navies matters to her. But, any other nation is hard-pressed when thinking about engaging Spain.

Of course, the situation is somewhat analogous in reverse, since Spain really can't do much damage to anybody else, either.

Which is one reason Spain tends to stay out of major-vs.-major wars.

Still, I agree that Spain should have been in my list.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 12
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 6:58:09 PM   
Grimrod42

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline 		I assume we are talking about PBEM
becuase agaisnt the AI with SPain last weekend I conquered all of Italy, France and large chunks of Germany.




(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 13
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 7:40:43 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline 		IMHO, this breaks the game as wars will now become a DRIVE FOR THE CAPITAL for the quick war victory....

Prussia, Austria, and France are going to be very hard pressed due to the availability of Minor Country supply sources near their capitals.

Spain will become an easier PP/land horse for France and England as there are only 4 areas between Bayonne and Madrid (for the French) and 3 areas between Almedia (Portugal) and Madrid (for the Brits)

Turkey will still be concered by Austria (4 Areas) or Naval invasion by Russia, Spain or England through Salencia

Ony Russia will be laughing.... (ADDED: Assuming you need to Occupy Moscow and St. Pete) or (Just Moscow)

talk about your shift in power...

ADDED: Comment about Russia and corrected spelling errors

< Message edited by AresMars -- 1/23/2008 9:28:46 PM >

(in reply to Grimrod42)
Post #: 14
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 7:51:32 PM   
Grimrod42

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 1/10/2008
Status: offline 		Russia is not safe either St.Petersburg is not hard to get to..,

As far as I remember this is(forced surrender) not in the manual...

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 15
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 9:18:50 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

... It;s not THAT hard to take Madrid. And how can you fight a successful guerilla campaign if you are absolutely tied to defenidng Madrid?

Have you ever actually TRIED to conquer Spain's capital? It's a lot harder than it looks. GB cannot even make the attempt, because she does not have enough depots and/or corps counters (you have to leave one in every square that is sufficient to kill any guerillas that appear). Also, the guerillas cannot be engaged. They cut supply without giving the enemy a chance to deal with them.

...


I play GB all the time and never have a problem taking Madrid... You just have to do it the right way... Get a few minor free states and use those extra corps for screening and defending your depots... I march from Gibraltar all the time and take Madrid.. or if I've got Portugal I march from there... it's even easier. I've always thought it was foolish for the Spanish to go to war with either France or GB. I've even had two different spanish players quit after only one year because they were sore that Madrid fell and I had wiped out their forces (of course they wouldn't take a surrender and instisted in both cases on fighting to the last man...)

Dude

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 16
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 9:25:08 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah i do not think Madrid is very hard to take; and of course France is the MAIN threat anyway, the one you would actually WANT to fight a guerilla war against. If Britain attacks, you might actually see a FRIENDLY French army marching to your defence!

All semantic however. Forced surrender needs to be implemented properly, i.e. no home nation manpower collection in the economic phase. Heck I'd be happy if Marshall just would acknowedge the problem... so far no one of authority has said anything concrete.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 17
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 10:00:10 PM   
zaquex


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

ORIGINAL: Murat


attacking forces breaking the seiges is an original rule from EIA and EIH...


Can you please point me to that rule, I dont seem to be able to find one that supports that just attacking a siege is enough to break a siege.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 18
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 10:06:47 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
The following may help from the orginial EiA - Not an Optional rule I believe, but here it is; (I have no EiH reference ATM)


7.5.4.2.3 Relieving Force-Limited Field Combats: If the besieged force attacks with the help of "relieving forces" (ie., external corps that enter the area from another area) or such relieving forces attack without assistance from any part (all besieged factors do not have to be used) of the besieged force, a "limited" field combat instead of a defender attack combat is fought. Limited field combats are fought at the same time as field and trivial combats (ie., before any siege assault or defender attack combats). A limited field combat is a normal field combat (use all normal field combat rules) that may not exceed one "day" (three combat rounds) in length and uses the following special rules:

7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.

7.5.4.2.3.1.1: The surviving siege defenders return to the besieged city and the entire relieving force returns to the area from which it entered the siege area (returns to any one of the areas from which it entered, if more than one). If all siege defenders were eliminated, the city is captured.

7.5.4.2.3.1.2: There is no pursuit if the relieving force did not break, and, if it did break, only the relieving force may be pursued, not the siege defenders.

7.5.4.2.3.2 Relieving Force Wins: If the besiegers break, they retreat in accordance with the normal retreat after combat rules (see 7.5.2.10.3), but may only be pursued by cavalry that is in the relieving force (not in the siege defender's force) and any previously besieged corps may, if desired, then be immediately moved out of the city into the surrounding area.

7.5.4.2.3.3 Political Points For Limited Field Combats: Political points for winning and losing are assigned as for field combats (see 7.5.2.10.1.3). To win or lose, one side must be broken or eliminated, otherwise the combat is considered a draw.

Source: http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/downloads/eiarules.zip

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 19
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 10:34:33 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		You cant find the rule Zaquex becuase it doesn't exist. AresMars quotes the correct rules section.

Simply attacking (and failing to beat) a besieging force absolutely does NOT lift the siege.

This should be fixed as well.

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 20
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 10:56:44 PM   
Tater

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/25/2007
Status: offline
quote:

...Have you ever actually TRIED to conquer Spain's capital?


No, but then nobody ever does because the Spaniard will normally surrender if it looks like it is going that far. Spain seldom has a reason to hold out if they can get a conditional...and the cost of forcing Spain to an unconditional is almost never worth it. So, from a strictly practical point of view, there is seldom any reason/opportunity to occupy Madrid.

OTOH, with this rule, concerns about supply lines are not that huge since winning the battle at the capital and occupying the city is all that matters. So you loose a couple of militia to foraging...so what, your opponent is going to be surrendering unconditionally shortly so it really doesn't matter.

_____________________________

Later-

Tater

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 21
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 11:00:37 PM   
zaquex


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

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

You cant find the rule Zaquex becuase it doesn't exist. AresMars quotes the correct rules section.



What I thought

quote:

7.5.4.2.3 Relieving Force-Limited Field Combats: If the besieged force attacks with the help of "relieving forces" (ie., external corps that enter the area from another area) or such relieving forces attack without assistance from any part (all besieged factors do not have to be used) of the besieged force, a "limited" field combat instead of a defender attack combat is fought....

7.5.4.2.3.1 Relieving Force Fails TO Win: If the relieving force breaks or does not win within 3 rounds, the siege is resumed.


Looks pretty clear for EiA standards


(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 22
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 11:37:30 PM   
Murat


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

ORIGINAL: zaquex
the siege is resumed.


RESUMED (From Webster's)
"to return to or begin again after interruption"

Pretty clear indeed.

You can combine that with the requirement to have an uninterrupted seige.


< Message edited by Murat -- 1/23/2008 11:40:47 PM >

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 23
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/23/2008 11:58:42 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline 		It seems to me this is a deviation (whether intentional or not) from the boardgame, but it cuts two ways. In EiANW, when a relieving corps moves into the area, the besiegers are pulled off the walls and into the rural area, breaking the siege whether the relievers win or not; that's obviously an advantage for the defenders. On the other hand, it means that the garrison can't participate in the combat (at least I don't see any way for them to do so), which is an advantage (though a slight one, if the garrison's small) for the besiegers.

Nathan Rose

< Message edited by ndrose -- 1/23/2008 11:59:40 PM >

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 24
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 1:13:49 AM   
zaquex


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

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex
the siege is resumed.


RESUMED (From Webster's)
"to return to or begin again after interruption"

Pretty clear indeed.

You can combine that with the requirement to have an uninterrupted seige.



Thank you for the definition, although it didnt seem to be any confusion of what resumed means.

Although I am confused with what you mean. What requirements are you referring to and what relevance does it have to support the current implementation of EiANW?

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 25
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 1:36:46 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		Well, it seems some confusion did exist since several people indicate that an attack by a corps that loses does not interrupt the seige, which it does, and always has. As for the uninterrupted language:

10.7 Conquest of Minor Countries
Conquests of minor countries are checked for after all major power sequences are completed. Control flags are changed to show the conquest of minor countries and their change of control. The control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied during the previous month and the conqueror has maintained uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation for the entire current month. A newly conquered minor country is always marked with a conquered control flag.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 26
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 2:10:02 AM   
zaquex


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

ORIGINAL: Murat

Well, it seems some confusion did exist since several people indicate that an attack by a corps that loses does not interrupt the seige, which it does, and always has. As for the uninterrupted language:


The semantics is irrelevant, the problem is that the implementation doesn't resume the siege as per 7.5.4.2.3.1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
10.7 Conquest of Minor Countries
Conquests of minor countries are checked for after all major power sequences are completed. Control flags are changed to show the conquest of minor countries and their change of control. The control flags are changed only if the capital of the minor country was occupied during the previous month and the conqueror has maintained uninterrupted and unbesieged occupation for the entire current month. A newly conquered minor country is always marked with a conquered control flag.


Which says that even if the releiving forces won the battle, the prerequisite for conquest has not been met for the past month.

It does not really have relevance for issue that the siege should be resumed, even though it highlights that EiANW currently deviate conciderable from EiA.

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/24/2008 2:12:31 AM >

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 27
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 2:18:50 AM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline 		Murat, the rule you are quoting is minor country control which is not relevant anyway since it's talking about uninterrupted OCCUPATION, to conquer a MINOR. No one disputes that rule.

Not sure why you are trying to derail this thread Murat but this is actually two important issues at stake in this thread:

1) There should absolutely not be a forced surrender requirement when your capital is occupied
2) Besieging units which have been involved in a field battle but not lost should return to sieging when the battle is complete

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 28
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 2:35:00 AM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		1. We kept Civil Disorder out of the game. It was only coded with Civil Disorder Restrictions in place thus forcing the player to sue for peace in the diplomacy step and not allowing the elimination of the MP. Maybe we could add this as an option later on?


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 29
RE: MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! - 1/24/2008 2:47:38 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline 		Hey Marshall could you please comment on:

quote:

1) There should absolutely not be a forced surrender requirement when your capital is occupied
2) Besieging units which have been involved in a field battle but not lost should return to sieging when the battle is complete


Its two absolutly game changing things that are fundamental for EiA. The current implementation is open for all sorts of abuse and exploitation that cant have been intended by the developers. On top of that it also creates balance issues. Can you give your thoughts and intentions regarding this. Please. 


Regards

zaq

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> MOST StupidEST-EST Rule! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

1.984