Question about depot numbers

[eske]

The number of depots should obviously be decided on for each scenario.
In the scenario editor.
What is correct, historical, balanced or whatever will always be debatable.
 
A very important issue in that debate is wether a depot garrison should be able to block a corps.
That is after all a rather important use of depots. Particularly for Austria, facing an enemy with better mobility.
(I think somewhere it was suggested to have an optional rule of "Overwhelming numbers". Very interesting! ).
Another optional rule to consider is the max 4 corps supplied pr. depot limit.
 
In my experience fewer depots and more difficult supply works to limit the megastacks in the late game. Which gives a more interesting game.
 
Btw. I think we just saw it as a mistake in the printing of EiA. So we painted that ninth depot green and gave it to Turkey. [:D]
 
/eske

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: eske

The number of depots should obviously be decided on for each scenario.
In the scenario editor.
What is correct, historical, balanced or whatever will always be debatable.

A very important issue in that debate is wether a depot garrison should be able to block a corps.
That is after all a rather important use of depots. Particularly for Austria, facing an enemy with better mobility.
(I think somewhere it was suggested to have an optional rule of "Overwhelming numbers". Very interesting! ).
Another optional rule to consider is the max 4 corps supplied pr. depot limit.

In my experience fewer depots and more difficult supply works to limit the megastacks in the late game. Which gives a more interesting game.

Btw. I think we just saw it as a mistake in the printing of EiA. So we painted that ninth depot green and gave it to Turkey. [:D]

/eske

Limiting depot to number of corps it can supply, will mostly benefit France who has the bigger corps.
The big looser will be Turkey.

Regards
Bresh

[pzgndr]

In the scenario editor. What is correct, historical, balanced or whatever will always be debatable.

Bingo.

The sooner Marshall releases a scenario editor, the happier everyone will be. Then we can have EiA classic scenarios, EiH variants, mix&match versions, and completely new stuff. [8D]

Until then, I'll just sit back with my bag of popcorn and watch the endless "Empires in Arguments" reruns. [8|]

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: bresh

 
IF EIH 3.0 was so good and balanced, why did they head on and made new versions ?
From what i could tell from one EIH forum they appearently "re-introduced" 9 depots to Austria ?

EIH had the reputation about trying to be more historical, but then it sounds weird if they would reduce the most effective supply system around.(Austria's).

Sorry Marshall, but its your statements, you said and this was confusing to me.
. The reducement is due to the map, although the map is the same for all nations, so why the difference..
. Del, stated and you agreed it was cause of how reinforcement works in EIANW, but it works the same for all nations .. Russia,Austria & Spain dont differ from that.

So EIH 3.0 is to blame.

Regards
Bresh

They went on because nothing is perfect and there is ALWAYS room to improve BUT at the time of our initial design for the "Napoleonic Wars" (Original Game) we had spoken with Michael Treasure (Creator/Moder of EiH) and had agreed to use EiH3.0 which was the current version back then. I really spent little time evaluating the number of depots but the testers did mention that we should use the same number of depots as was in EiH3.0 due to the fact that if you give more then supply chains might allow people to invade MPs that might otherwise not be possible with fewer depots.

Marshall can you please help me fill out how this was created.
As far as i can find EIH maps.
Tyrol Capital in EIH is supposed to be in "EIANW area172 Innsbruck", not as in EIA&EIANW Salzburg...

This could possible be a reason why Austria was reduced in depots, since it enables a possible supply line from Innsbruck to Freiburg, and from Freiburg to Luxenburg. And as you wrote game tested.

But then in your EIANW map you moved the capital ? Meaning Austria needs 1 more depot to create this same supply line.
Was this also tested by EIH team with only 7 depots ?
Im guessing if they adjusted the EIH-map in a later version, they possible also returned those depots.

But i feel it brings inconsistency to the version flow, if you use 1 setup pool, while using another map.

Regards
Bresh

Bresh:

Here is where we made our map from. What version maps are you using?

[bresh]

These two M.

Source
http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive ... ihmap.html
And
http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/charts/map.html

Not sure how i embed it in the post, so attached.

Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

What maps are those?
Do you have the files that you could send me?
 
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What maps are those?
Do you have the files that you could send me?

Im not sure what files you mean ?
Links are from some EIA site i passed by, notiched they had EIH maps, so was gonna print them for when i plan moves, but then i notiched that Tyrol (and Stockholm) looked different.

I know you moved Stockholm on purpose and thats fine, it only affects a minor country, and frozen-winterzone.

But as I tried to describe, maybe the Austria-7 depots in EIH 3.0 is based on Austria having Innsbruck as Tyrol Capital, and not Salzburg.
Moving the Capital might have justified less depots i guess.
If our map is a later EIH version, where Austria had more depots, it could be why they moved the capital to Salzburg.

Last i checked i was still awaiting access to EIH forum, so i only have the resources i can google myself to.

Regards
Bresh

Regards
Bresh

[sw30]

The top map that Bresh referred to is the one from EIH4.0a, not sure where the bottom one came from.  As far as I know, the 5.x versions moved it back to Salzburg.

[timewalker03]

Well this argument about the why's and the therefores is old. It is a continual round and round that will go on for as long as the game is supported. When I first came to the board the game was originally going to be EiA not Harm. Then as Marshall stated the loud voices came out championing HARM. The quieter voices wanting EiA just became quiet over time since it always seems the loud minority beats out the quiet majority in the end. I was always hoping for EiA with the naval rules added from the Eratta from the GENERAL magazine.

My gaming group I played with from 1989 to 1992 was a hardcore group. We had some members leave but were replaced by other good players who were dedicated to completing games. We would always try new rules put out in the GENERAL and we found most to be very playable.

In another group I played in during the late 90's we tried the Harm variant for about three weeks. I remember our Harm days ended with this quote from one of the players in the group. "This is the worst piece of SH__ ever greated in the history of war gaming. I hope the creator of this crap falls into a well and somehow finds his way to the bowels of hell where this #%$##%$#%$#%$#^% was created." I believe we all had the same sentiment but were among the quiet majority. Harm sucked then and still does now.

I am with many here who would like the original EiA as the stock game and Harm to be the edited variant. I really wish the focus of the games future would be put into the AI and not so much into the PBEM function of the game. Since playing the AI is most likely the only way a game will ever be completed it would be nice to have a strong opponent and one that will be there a week from now when you are ready to play. I was in 3 PBEM games and had to pull out due to personal reasons which have since been resolved. I know the stress that put on the groups, but we had only played 4 months in one and two in both of the others. All three had been restarts with the original games started in April. I left them all in late July. Each group had a 24hr turnaround per player per turn. SO that means if all players did their turns in that time each phase would take 7 days. 7 days for diplomacy, 7 days for reinforcements, 7 days for naval, etc. you could be looking at two months to complete one game month which was about right for the three games I was in.

I know I am rambling, but perspective seems lost with this game. I really hope sooner than later a great product comes from this. This is just the slowest moving thing I have ever seen from development to gameplay. I am not knocking Marshall on this. I am knocking Matrix though, since they are marketing this game as Empire in Arms and not what it truely is.

[timewalker03]

One other thing I want to point out. I went back to the original thread when the game was announced. It was stated that they would put out EiA with some Harm features as optional features. Seems that was not 100% accurate.