Computer Empires in Arms 101 Question

[DonCzirr]

Hi EIA veterans ....

I was hoping to pick your minds on the following game element:

Minor Allies.

Is it worth it?

As Russia, I had wanted to go to war with the minor countries around the Georgia area and at the same time, gain Sweden

as an Ally.

This all went well, but the Ottomans keep flipping Sweden back each time I gain a better influence status - and it does

not seem economically viable to keep pumping money into this area.

So - general question - in what situations, if at all, is it worth while to gain Minor Allies through diplo spending

as opposed to just biding time and conquering / absorbing them ?

[pzgndr]

FWIW, the minor diplomacy is more of a EIH feature and many EIA vets don't care for it. But it's a non-optional feature in the game so players need to consider it.

I would recommend checking the Minor Country Chart (15.2) and seeing which MPs have historical influence (e.g., Turkey has +3 for Algeria). Also carefully review rules 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 for how Influenced and Allied minor countries are treated. The greatest advantage appears to be having an Allied minor before having war declared on you, and having that Allied minor in a position to help you in some way. If you lose the war and go into Instability or Fiasco you'll lose the minor anyway. So maybe a few $$ invested will help some, maybe not. A disadvantage of having an Influenced minor and having it attacked is that you take control but also that you lose PP when it gets conquered. If you get a lapse of war, you win control of the minor and the other guy loses PP, but otherwise you're spending $$ and risking a PP loss.

So is it worth it? Good question. I don't know. I find the minor diplomacy feature an interesting sideshow but not convinced it does much, either for good or harm. I would also be interested in hearing from others, particularly if they played EIH.

[DonCzirr]

Sorry for my ignorance Bill but what is EIH ? Is that the table top version?

It's been decades since I played the board version so some of the original elements are faded in my memory.

As it stands, I can't see it being worth while (Minor Allies) so I think I'll just go for conquest and set my diplomacy settings to take control of strategically aligned Minors when attacked - but with no money influence / modifiers.

Turkey has declared war on me so I think I can spend the money better on fleshing out my Guard and regular infantry Corps.

[pzgndr]

EIH is Empires in Harm, a modified version of EIA. The computer game attempted to implement many EIH features. But they are different and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth during development. So there's that, plus the many bugs and AI weaknesses along the way that drove away many players.

My grandiose intent when I got into continuing code development was of course to work off the bugs and make improvements. As an appeasement to both EIA and EIH players, I made the effort to create separate OOBs for the classic EIA and alternate EIH campaigns. Not too sure it really helped to bring anybody back, but it's there. Maybe whenever I get v1.23 done and released, with the 1812 scenarios, perhaps it might renew some interest. Regardless, it's an interesting game to play and enjoy for what it is. And getting better, slowly...

[jjdenver]

Out of curiosity, are there groups playing the EIH version of the matrix pc EIA game? Or is it not a separate "thing" inside matrix pc EIA game?

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver
Out of curiosity, are there groups playing the EIH version of the matrix pc EIA game? Or is it not a separate "thing" inside matrix pc EIA game?

Yes, the pbem game I was in as Austria was the EIH version. I think a couple other games are EIH version. Not sure if anyone is playing the EIA classic version. Since the pc game implemented many EIH features, most folks got used to it. At least those still playing. Any groups playing EIA classic, any stories?

[Daniel Amieiro]

Well. For EIA-pure gamers, i would use my EIA-Mod. It mimics the EIA map board, gives italy, two sicilies, k of denmark and k of sweden, and so on (westphalia impossible). And no lights fleet.
About EIH feature of influence on minors, it only has one utility. If the minor is an Ally and some major declares war on you, it will be inmediately a minor free for you without conquest.
But this EIH feature has little impact on game. A major power cannot wait for strategic minors (like sweden if russia) without DOWing these.
It has more impact in game the lack of making/resizing some countries like poland or not being able to make c of rhine without a westphalian step. Or lacking k of italy.

I think EIH was a good step ahead for many things, but if you play extensively, i do not think it changes the game flow too many (you play the same). It shines with the France Revolutionary scenario, but for a 1805 scenario, their addition is many non strategic minors (lot of germans and caucacus) that have sense on other scenarios or with complete minor constructions (making bigger bavaria ot things like that as a previous steps of C Rhine), but without use in current game implementation.


Actually i think the game is a EIA thing with a EIH board and light fleets (and transports)
A EIH game has no sense if you cannot resize minors, if there isn't combat chits for fleets and if you cannot merge kingdoms in other ones and if ottoman cannot buy islamic infantry.

So i think it's a EIA with more minors (and light fleet) the current game. It's very far from a EIH game.