RE: Most controversial EIA rule...

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: Most controversial EIA 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 >> RE: Most controversial EIA rule...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Most controversial EIA rule... - 5/18/2005 7:25:55 PM

argaur

Posts: 277
Joined: 5/13/2005
From: Spain
Status: offline

Yes, i always hated this rule, how can a corp of 1000 men could stop an army of 200000, ......

_____________________________

"... tell the Emperor that I am facing Russians.
If they had been Prussians, I'd have taken the
position long ago."
- Marshal Ney, 1813

(in reply to jamo262)

Post #: 31

RE: Most controversial EIA rule... - 5/18/2005 11:19:07 PM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamo262

the rule about retirement ino a city.

I use 1sp corps to slow down an army and retreat into a city before battle.

Is the game going to have a 5 to 1 over-run to counter act this?

NO please. Do not make EiA into another count the ratios game like 3rd reich!
It is a big difference how modern war and war of the 18th/19th century are quite different.

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to jamo262)

Post #: 32

RE: Most controversial EIA rule... - 5/21/2005 5:31:28 PM

jamo262

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

No well a ratios game is not what I had in mind. Also with regard to corp on cities its a simple matter to change the rule that a corp must declare whether its inside or outside-if its outside they can fight, if the attacker so wishes, imediatley-one corp against one corp-and if he retreats inside just beseige the city. This change could work in field battles with 1 or 2 sp battles holding up large armies.
It would give a reason for a good secondary leader like Ney to act in the advance guard as well.

In fact upon reflection I realise now that this is not the rule that bugs me the most. Its the "an army cant reinforce if its already been in a battle" rule . Imagine two freindly armies side by side one gets attacked by a 1sp corp or cossack and becomes unavailable to reinforce the other.

What do you think of that one and how would you fix it?

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 33