Fog of War

[megalomania2003]

The "wooden walls" strategy from GB is to be expected (he is playing to win) if he gets the chance. In my gaming group we used a house rule allowing the other nations to subtract PP from GB if a sufficiently large continental embargo dould be established, and we did not allow GB to subtract VP's

[isandlwana]

When I played GB this was my basic strategy --it worked 9/10 times. Boring but sure to win---[8D]

[Soapy Frog]

Yes that is correct GB is commonly cut down early in the game by a Spanish-French-Russian coalition, although with the ANW and British Naval morale reduced to 3.5 this became less of a pressing need.
 
Countering the British "go it alone" stargetgy requires the other players to actually cooperate. In a good group, the signs of Britain attempting the strategy will be spotted early and the necessary steps taken.

[baboune]

Which is why it is critical to have a good knowledge of the different countries sihp building activities easily [;)]

[AresMars]

I don't see why you say that the "Wooden Wall" tactic is game breaking?
 
It forces the Naval powers to build ships and work against England...something England does not want...
 
[ 8.1 ]THE VICTORY POINTS STEP from the EiA rules was very clear about someone gets the VP total or GB wins.....
 
Quote:
 
8.1.2 POSSIBLE BRITISH CHANGE IN VICTORY POINTS:  [/b]The British player has the option of spending up to one third of the victory points he gained this step to subtract that same number of victory points from the total victory points of any ONE major power with which Great Britain is currently at war. This is done instead of Great Britain gaining those victory points.
[/b] 
8.1.3 HOW TO WIN A GAME: [/b]During the Victory Points Step of a game's final Turn, or possibly sooner, a victor is determined.
[/b] 
8.1.3.1 SCENARIO VICTORY: [/b]Each scenario has its own victory conditions (see the individual scenarios in 13.0) and the victory determination systems are different from those used for campaign games.
[/b] 
8.1.3.2  CAMPAIGN VICTORY: [/b]Victory points are collected during each Victory Points Step (see 8. 1).  In the campaign games, the first player(s) to obtain enough total victory points to reach or exceed his major power's victory level and announce this fact (it does not have to be announced at the first opportunity) is a winner.  If two or more major powers have reached or exceeded their victory levels simultaneously, those major powers are cowinners. Players may not transfer victory points to each other. If no player reaches the required victory level by the end of a campaign game, Great Britain wins.
 
Also Economic Manipulation (EM) works for everyone.....not just England....

[iamspamus]

This similiar to how I played Spain. 2 or 3 corps, best general, all ships, and full garrison in Cadiz. Any attacks (such as Portugal or Morocco) done with the remainder. Garrison of one unit in each capital. My "fleets" used for supply or sailing around had 1 point factors. (We figured that this was the warship and anynumber of transport ships were with them.)

So, from that point, got money from FR for "ships". Got money from GB for "cav". Expanded a bit in N Africa and waited for the right time to either jump France or GB. Eco Manipulation to the fullest. It's a bit boring, but I was way out in front once.

Basically, my thinking on Spain is that you are a major power as long as you have a fleet. Similar to Turkey is a major power as long as they have a lot of thos provinces that produce feudal corps.

In my EIANW game, as Russia, I've taken Anatolia, Syria, Bulgaria and Rumelia (as well as others) from the Turk. He's not a happy camper. And last turn Aug 1808 or so, I fought the SP fleets in N Sea with my combined Swedish-Danish-Dutch-Russian fleet and drove them into the German state just north of Holland with a port which they had just taken from Austria. I followed up with a blockade and then a city assault...bye, bye fleet. Too baad since they were the lackeys of the Brits . My ally Nap is waiting across the channel from London, but alas has no few ships himself.

Jason

ORIGINAL: megalomania2003

The "wooden walls" strategy from GB is to be expected (he is playing to win) if he gets the chance. In my gaming group we used a house rule allowing the other nations to subtract PP from GB if a sufficiently large continental embargo dould be established, and we did not allow GB to subtract VP's

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

Essentially because that is how the board game is played. How does that not make sense to you? Or did you play the board game via snail mail?

When I played the board game, back in the day, we always set a time to play (maybe once a week or once every two weeks) for a few hours and we would all get together around the gaming table. Strange concept huh?

My guess is that TCP/IP wasn't implemented due to difficulty.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

Essentially because that is how the board game is played. How does that not make sense to you? Or did you play the board game via snail mail?

When I played the board game, back in the day, we always set a time to play (maybe once a week or once every two weeks) for a few hours and we would all get together around the gaming table. Strange concept huh?

My guess is that TCP/IP wasn't implemented due to difficulty.

Again, you were a playtester, you should know this answer not be guessing. I think what Dave really wanted to know was how TCP/IP worked so that it would actually make PBEM run smoother as opposed to the current system of emails/groups. Short answer is that it would allow phases to be resolved with everyone on line at the same time leading to a faster game.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: DodgyDave

sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

Essentially because that is how the board game is played. How does that not make sense to you? Or did you play the board game via snail mail?

When I played the board game, back in the day, we always set a time to play (maybe once a week or once every two weeks) for a few hours and we would all get together around the gaming table. Strange concept huh?

My guess is that TCP/IP wasn't implemented due to difficulty.

Again, you were a playtester, you should know this answer not be guessing. I think what Dave really wanted to know was how TCP/IP worked so that it would actually make PBEM run smoother as opposed to the current system of emails/groups. Short answer is that it would allow phases to be resolved with everyone on line at the same time leading to a faster game.

Once again if you actually read my posts you would know that I never got a chance to playtest. I really wish you would get your head out of your ass and read people's posts before replying to them and jumping all over them. It just makes you look ignorant.

[Murat]

And I quote:

ORIGINAL:  NeverMan
...when I became a betatester...

 
Feel free to reread your own post that I got that from and identify the word 'NEVER' (it's not there, feel free to edit though).

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Murat

And I quote:

ORIGINAL:  NeverMan
...when I became a betatester...

Feel free to reread your own post that I got that from and identify the word 'NEVER' (it's not there, feel free to edit though).

Yep, I say "BETATESTER": one who is given the opportunity to test the beta release. I NEVER got a chance to actually do any testing. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because I don't have the time to argue semantics with half-wits.

[Thresh]

Yep, I say "BETATESTER": one who is given the opportunity to test the beta release. I NEVER got a chance to actually do any testing. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because I don't have the time to argue semantics with half-wits.

All evidence to the contrary....

In one of my PbEM games, the GM lived in Brunei. Myself and two players lived in the US, one on the East Coast, one on the west cost, me in mid America. The french player live in Britain, the British player lived in Germany, The Russian player lived in Saudi Arabia.

So, when exactly were we all supposed to get together for some TCP/IP play?

Todd

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

All evidence to the contrary....

In one of my PbEM games, the GM lived in Brunei. Myself and two players lived in the US, one on the East Coast, one on the west cost, me in mid America. The french player live in Britain, the British player lived in Germany, The Russian player lived in Saudi Arabia.

So, when exactly were we all supposed to get together for some TCP/IP play?

Todd

I have no clue.

In one of my games, all of the players lived in the same time zone. So, why exactly can't we all get together for a TCP/IP game?

You see, it doesn't have to be a either/or thing. It can be a "both" thing. Why not have PBEM AND (it's a big word "and") TCP/IP play?

I, it's a personal thing and you certainly don't have to agree which you obviously don't, think that for $70 MatrixGames could have, no in fact should have, implemented BOTH.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Thresh
In one of my PbEM games, the GM lived in Brunei. Myself and two players lived in the US, one on the East Coast, one on the west cost, me in mid America. The french player live in Britain, the British player lived in Germany, The Russian player lived in Saudi Arabia.

So, when exactly were we all supposed to get together for some TCP/IP play?

Todd

Good situation here that can still benefit from TCP/IP. Battle file exchanges can take a long time (Att chit pick, Def chit pick, Att 1st round resolution & loss removal, Def 1st round loss removal & 2nd round resolution & loss removal, etc. * days + pursuit with a 24 hour turn around time between emails) by email but if the 2 combatants can arrange a mutually convenient time they can knock out the battle in a few minutes.

[isandlwana]

Everyone complaining about a GB advantage should remember history--The game is designed to reflect history as much as possible otherwise everyone would start out equals.  The ANW are an improvement and still maintain an advantage for GB.  This is because in history the Fr and Sp were sorry to say pretty pathetic at both naval tactics and in maintaining a professional navy...in fact in the 1790s the revolutionaries guillotined most of the Fr professional navy who were part of the nobility and promoted many "sans cullottes" into officer positions with little or no experience--because of long periods of enforced idleness the Fr and Sp fleets were poorly trained and would only sally forth in  perfect weather notoriously avoiding contrary weather or the possibility of a fight.  Remember that even when significantly outgunned very few ship and or fleet actions were considered to have gone against the Brits.  You all are whining much as Napoleon whined to Villeneuve and the French Marine Directorate.  EVen the Lille crossing is kind of inaccurate in that it falsely elevates the chance of a channel crossing something that while planned remained impossible due to weather and inability of the French to break out of blockaded ports. Even Nappy finally gave up and sent his army into Russia.....another BRILLIANT move!!!![8|]