AAR - Ralegh (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message


Yohan -> AAR - Ralegh (11/17/2007 12:24:25 AM)

Hey Ralegh,

I think you might be off a bit on the losses in the AAR? You said:

Moving the blockade into place, I discovered the French had set their main fleet to intercept - so I set about deliberately trying to lure them out... Eventually, they came out to fight, and we trounced them (10 French losses and 20 British). The French retreated into St Malo.

Are the losses reversed?

Rob




Jabba -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/17/2007 11:53:15 AM)

Shouldn't Spain be allied to France in January 1805?




Son_of_Montfort -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/17/2007 6:56:43 PM)

Matrix makes me hate weekends... Puts this up, then it turns to Saturday when their is no chance of release. [;)]

Nice AAR, I was wondering about that casualty thing too, seems that would be a British loss as it stands. The video AAR really take the cake and need to be the "gold standard" by which future AAR are judged. Good show Ralegh!

I was wondering though, to take casualties seems to be a good amount of "clicks." Is this accurate? Also, does one get to see the "rolling" phase of combat, or does it just "resolve" quickly and tell you how many to kill?

SoM




Ralegh -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 2:34:12 AM)

a) I must have made a typo reversing the casulties in the naval interception: the French lost MORE ships.
b) There are no pre-existing alliances in te game at the moment, and only the France-Britain pre-existing war. Lots of alliances tend to be made in the first few turns, with France-Spain and France-Turkey being likely but not always.
c) I think the casulties work pretty well - when I clicked on "Inf" after taking the cav factor was actually unnecessary.
d) I will try to get a longer field battle, so you can see each round occuring.  You get a chance to reinforce, commit the guards, etc - Britain probably won't show many larger battles, but we will see.




Murat30 -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 3:12:58 AM)

greetings, and thanks for clarifications and advice, in empires in arms one thing for me very important is that in manpower and in money it cost much time to make available the cost of the at start army, this can be said for each and all the powers, maybe i like if there are a option of "richer economy" as it does have "forge of freedom", givin more recruit freedom to the player,

best regards,

alarick.




Ralegh -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 4:46:22 AM)

Murat30 - thats a very interesting idea, and one I have not come across before. I suppose it would be possible to have a "setup phase" where you started from a certain amount of money and manpower, and built your starting forces. That would make an interesting variant. I wonder how many France's would build the fleet at all it they had any choice?

This is not a standard part of the game, however, and is extremely unlikely to make it into the first release. I will suggest it as one option that could go into an expansion pack - that should get it CONSIDERED, although I can't promise it would get in.

Come to think of it, I can't promise there would be an expansion pack - that would probably depend on sales being good enough...




Murat30 -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 5:36:50 AM)

greetings, i think that to make available as a computer game is enough for an initial release, on the boardgame version it is not easy, it indeed is very hard to finish even a single turn, all this implemented right on the computer and adding giving computer opponents make worth the purchase, i think i do not make mistake if say that very much people will have his first empires in arms finished with matrix computer version, about troops another very important concern is the fact that the main power of france, and this is because the rule around the death of napoleon in battle, france have the ability to make a remake of "la grande armee", think that napoleon is the better rating leader, he will not suffer on combat die rolls with a very large army, as it is historical, to defeat this army in the empires in arms community is a fact of permanent thinking about it, most of the leaders take penalties with increased corps commands under them, not so napoleon and include the imperial guard and you have a recreation very faithfull to what is the grande armee on real napoleonic europe, if games features all this it will be the better wargame for this year, some are good games but empires in arms and a computer system that do all the work on know the rules and tables that can take one night for one turn is an good-outstanding product, is my oppinion but for me i think it makes sense,

thanks for all support,

with best regards,

alarick.




Son_of_Montfort -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 5:44:01 AM)

Thanks Ralegh, for the clarification. I remember reading your guide to CoG almost more than the manual, so keep this stuff coming. [:)]

I guess I was thinking about alliances and stuff, and had a few questions. The map begins with the European map in 1805 (I have not played the boardgame), right? So doesn't this make France relatively powerful and have some "near allies" with France's client states (like the Kingdom of Italy)? Even without the automatic war with England, I would think that most games would end up with a coalition against the might of Imperial France, or am I mistaken.

I guess what I am confused about are the "war aims" of the countries in Empire in Arms. Do the British start with more "victory points" so that, if France fails to be appropriately aggressive, England will prevail (note shameless V for Vendetta reference) for keeping the continental status quo? Or are the war aims closer to risk, where every side is attempting to expand their empires at the expense of another (meaning that there could be an early "Austro-Prussian War" and France could ally with Russia against England)? Clearing this up would greatly help me understand the game.

Thanks for all your work Ralegh, I am super excited about this game. Can't wait to play it!

SoM




Adraeth Montecuccoli -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 10:39:59 AM)

@Son of Monfort, in the boardgame every Major Power can win because the victory points are scored in different ways regarding a player will be France or Spain. There is a track in which countries are considered "good powers", "medium powers" or "fiasco zone"... this give variations on diplomatic actions, but victory points are awarded in different ways.. for istance there is even the possibility to make a bid declaring a certain amount of victory points at the beggining of a game...

i know this might be difficult to master now without the game, anyway i think you can find some .pdf format ot .txt of Empires in Arms on the web, i am pretty sure of that.

In the end, a player can win even with Ottoman Empire not forcing him however to conquer all the map.[:)]




Grollub -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 6:04:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Thanks Ralegh, for the clarification. I remember reading your guide to CoG almost more than the manual, so keep this stuff coming. [:)]

I guess I was thinking about alliances and stuff, and had a few questions. The map begins with the European map in 1805 (I have not played the boardgame), right? So doesn't this make France relatively powerful and have some "near allies" with France's client states (like the Kingdom of Italy)? Even without the automatic war with England, I would think that most games would end up with a coalition against the might of Imperial France, or am I mistaken.

I guess what I am confused about are the "war aims" of the countries in Empire in Arms. Do the British start with more "victory points" so that, if France fails to be appropriately aggressive, England will prevail (note shameless V for Vendetta reference) for keeping the continental status quo? Or are the war aims closer to risk, where every side is attempting to expand their empires at the expense of another (meaning that there could be an early "Austro-Prussian War" and France could ally with Russia against England)? Clearing this up would greatly help me understand the game.

Thanks for all your work Ralegh, I am super excited about this game. Can't wait to play it!

SoM



If you need/want to look up the board game rules, FAQ, other AAR's etc, have a look at http://eia.xnetz.com/




Son_of_Montfort -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 6:22:39 PM)

Thanks guys! I wondered about this, as it seemed to me that victory requirements for France would be different that victory for the Turks. I'll browse those rules, to get an idea.

Now this computer version is a mix of EiA and EiH, right?

SoM




Grollub -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 6:33:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Thanks guys! I wondered about this, as it seemed to me that victory requirements for France would be different that victory for the Turks. I'll browse those rules, to get an idea.

Now this computer version is a mix of EiA and EiH, right?

SoM



Another useful link is http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20030801a which contains the original strategy article on EiA from the Avalon Hill General magazine. It also hints/explains a little about the different countries victory levels and what it entails.




napoleonbuff -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/19/2007 8:20:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

I guess I was thinking about alliances and stuff, and had a few questions. The map begins with the European map in 1805 (I have not played the boardgame), right? So doesn't this make France relatively powerful and have some "near allies" with France's client states (like the Kingdom of Italy)? Even without the automatic war with England, I would think that most games would end up with a coalition against the might of Imperial France, or am I mistaken.

I guess what I am confused about are the "war aims" of the countries in Empire in Arms. Do the British start with more "victory points" so that, if France fails to be appropriately aggressive, England will prevail (note shameless V for Vendetta reference) for keeping the continental status quo? Or are the war aims closer to risk, where every side is attempting to expand their empires at the expense of another (meaning that there could be an early "Austro-Prussian War" and France could ally with Russia against England)? Clearing this up would greatly help me understand the game.



There are seven major powers; most start with control of some of the minors (France has many).

Each major power has a different victory point requirement to win; France's VP requirement is so high that France is forced into actively pursuing VPs via conquests most of the time, while Turkey can win by doing nothing and just avoiding the attention of other players.




malcolm_mccallum -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/20/2007 2:35:35 AM)

Thanks for the AAR.

Sadly, it has made me less interested in purchasing the game.

To see the British running around with land armies besieging Paris and winning and getting a conditional peace out of France in 1805 shows just how broken the game can be.

The AI appears incompetent.







mcclarey -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/20/2007 3:06:06 AM)

I still plan on buying the game the minute it comes out, but such an easy victory by Britain in 1805, on the hardest difficulty level, does give one pause. In 1805 any British army attempting to take Paris would have been destroyed almost effortlessly by the French. I will hope this was a fluke and that the AI normally plays a better game.




Murat30 -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/20/2007 5:46:34 AM)

greetings, well, i think the computer opponent taken in account, as someone make point very well, taken in account all variables of such a game, all facets is not that bad as seems, in 1805 it is austerlitz, most french troops are around ulm, northern italy fighting and maneouvering against austria and russia superior and combined armies, in the game is a fact of deccision for the player that plays france, but for france, given the victory point system is crucial to gain regions and increase the victory point income, that needed much troops trough austria and possibly prussia, in adding, this is not the first time that a play of empires in arms the english chanel is the key to victory, for both england and france, but it is more difficult to invade england as england have not to worry about spain prussia and austria, as the french player indeed must or should worry if not want to go to the fiasco zone on the victory, and standard is not enough for victory most of the plays in this game for france, historically is when all european nations pact against france when france is defeated, leipzig 1813 onwards, but the fact is that such a alliance with human players can arise from the first turn, not in 1813, or i am missing something?, well, do you think that a computer opponent can arise victorious if human players under control of england prussia austria and russia pact against france in 1805?, for sure even a experienced and high-dexterity player, playing france in such a game or play will be defeated, as a colateral note i can say that this style of coalitions is not a "feature" of this game alone, it happens now and then at a common pace in all games about diplomacy, most players of empires in arms know that france if not "reduced" will win most of the games played, that arise a interesting question and concern, about two at start setup different, one if it is historical france against europe or instead a free for all and france will be free of all this pressure, maybe with at hand rules comes to mind some short of "house rules" about fixed at start alliances for a fast fix, main factions being england and france and onwards each of them select out one allied of available players and so the "all against france" problem is solved as there will have two capable of wining sides from start,

it is my oppinion, thanks for take the time to read out all this,

with best regards,

alarick.




Norden -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/20/2007 9:27:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat30

greetings, well, i think the computer opponent taken in account, as someone make point very well, taken in account all variables of such a game, all facets is not that bad as seems, in 1805 it is austerlitz, most french troops are around ulm, northern italy fighting and maneouvering against austria and russia superior and combined armies, in the game is a fact of deccision for the player that plays france, but for france, given the victory point system is crucial to gain regions and increase the victory point income, that needed much troops trough austria and possibly prussia, in adding, this is not the first time that a play of empires in arms the english chanel is the key to victory, for both england and france, but it is more difficult to invade england as england have not to worry about spain prussia and austria, as the french player indeed must or should worry if not want to go to the fiasco zone on the victory, and standard is not enough for victory most of the plays in this game for france, historically is when all european nations pact against france when france is defeated, leipzig 1813 onwards, but the fact is that such a alliance with human players can arise from the first turn, not in 1813, or i am missing something?, well, do you think that a computer opponent can arise victorious if human players under control of england prussia austria and russia pact against france in 1805?, for sure even a experienced and high-dexterity player, playing france in such a game or play will be defeated, as a colateral note i can say that this style of coalitions is not a "feature" of this game alone, it happens now and then at a common pace in all games about diplomacy, most players of empires in arms know that france if not "reduced" will win most of the games played, that arise a interesting question and concern, about two at start setup different, one if it is historical france against europe or instead a free for all and france will be free of all this pressure, maybe with at hand rules comes to mind some short of "house rules" about fixed at start alliances for a fast fix, main factions being england and france and onwards each of them select out one allied of available players and so the "all against france" problem is solved as there will have two capable of wining sides from start,

it is my oppinion, thanks for take the time to read out all this,

with best regards,

alarick.


Murat30, much as I hate to say it, this is nearly unreadable. There is exactly one "." and that is after alarick. [;)] To top it off, youre english is a tad hard to read in the first place - no offense please, Im obviously not native english either. I value your opinion, we have both been around here for a while waiting for this one. This time, I gave up on your input, which is a shame. [:(]

best regards,




MPHopcroft -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/21/2007 2:37:47 AM)

As I posted in the wrong section, what I want to know is what France as a player power can do to prevent such a British adventure from being attempted, much less succeeding. Historically, such an invasion would be possible but the Admiralty and whitehall chose note to engage in such adventures.

The thing that seems clear from this AAR is that if you leave an opening it WILL be exploited if it is to the enemy's advantage to do so. Ralegh ackowledged this adventure wopuld have ended in disaster had the French chosen to fight to their full capacity.




Roads -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/21/2007 6:05:27 AM)

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.




timothy_stone -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/21/2007 2:06:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.


I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?




Erik Rutins -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/21/2007 3:33:11 PM)

Don't form any conclusions yet folks, another chapter in the AAR is coming right up...




bresh -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/24/2007 6:01:40 PM)

Ack i notiched they changed the map ?

Making walking from france-england.

Thats not on my empire in arms maps.
Why make so drastic a change ?

Regards
Bresh




Norden -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/25/2007 12:30:22 AM)

Its an optional rule in the original game.
So, with any luck it still is [:)].





Roads -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/25/2007 3:45:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.


I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?

Yes. That is quite worrisome. Hopefully that gets fixed.




Norden -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/25/2007 12:31:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.


I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?


I agree, it is a change to have France and England beeing able to take conditionals from each other. As the main contenders and the games main driving forces, they are required to surrender unconditionally to each other. So thats changed. But also in the boardgame there was an option to let them start at peace with each other, so maybe, what we are seeing here are options. On the other hand, Raleigh stated, he'd chosen all standard options...

Finally France is not lending money, but paying reparations, which England choose as victory condition.






timothy_stone -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/25/2007 3:33:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norden
(snip)

I agree, it is a change to have France and England beeing able to take conditionals from each other. As the main contenders and the games main driving forces, they are required to surrender unconditionally to each other. So thats changed. But also in the boardgame there was an option to let them start at peace with each other, so maybe, what we are seeing here are options. On the other hand, Raleigh stated, he'd chosen all standard options...

Finally France is not lending money, but paying reparations, which England choose as victory condition.



second point first: It wasn't the reparations i was referring to (i know what those are), it was this line on page 1 of the AAR:
" February 1805

In February, we proposed an alliance with Prussia, and ask our allies for money. Spain says no, but Austrian promises 10$ for next eco phase. "

The A.I. should be a lot smarter than that.

Secondly, the lack of the FR/GB always at war (excepting unconditional surrender with explicit terms)
*SEVERELY* unbalances the game, and turns it into a MUCH harder game for all players except FR and GB.

As a FR player, a small surrender to GB is not a tremendous loss, it's almost attractive - in exchange for 5 pp.s, you suddenly have freedom of the seas. If you count the Dutch and Neapolitans, FR has the 2nd largest fleet on the board

Guess what this does to Russia (who you have a larger fleet than, and if he *IS* brave enough to go to sea, he faces the ever-present threat of GB deciding it's a good time to earn some cheap Political Points and to more firmly establish its mastery of the seas by crushing the RUS fleet.

SPain is suddenly in the same boat (no pun intended) It makes taking the FR war to RUssia or Spain incredibly easier, as teh FR can invade and even sea-supply and reinforce. Gone are the need to make Poland, and the long cossack-plagued supply chains -- FR just invades St Petersburg and uses that as a base. I could go on, but you can figure out all the other possibilities easily, once you think about FR having total naval mobility...

As for GB - heck, I'd just as cheerfully give up the 5 pp.s to surrender if i was the GB player.

Why? Because next time FR attacks Russia, it's the work of a moment for GB to attack SP, and the odds of a GB force defeating the SP (wellington and 4.5 morale v. castanos and 3.0 morale) are very good - which means you can burn the entire SP fleet in port.

After that, who is going to keep GB from prying denmark and Sweden away from teh Rus? If the chance arises, the Rus fleet will be sunk (or it will all hide in the Black sea).

At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).

The other 5 players are stuck being the punching-bags for the two stronger-than-usual Major Powers.
ESPECIALLY if FR/GB choose to ally - the game can get pretty frustrating for the other players

imagine SP, with no matter how good of a SP player facing an allied FR/GB - no matter *how* skilled your tactics, no matter *how* good your diplomacy (heck, you could talk all 4 other players into declaring war on FR/GB and it would make no difference) - you'll lose 90% of the fights, and will be *forced* into unconditional surrender within a few turns by either total destruction in the field or the loss of all your capitals.

SP (and most others) will be forced into surrendering immediately upon D.O.W. in the vain hope of being able to join in as a vulture in the other little wars, so that you can scrap for 3rd or 4th place, far far behind the Major Pair.

There's a game-balance reason that rule was put into the game (in a later errata of the General Mag strict restrictions were also put on their ever being to ally)

Fortunately, in a multi-player game you can agree w/ each other that you are using that optional rule (whether the comp-game has it or not), and i *strongly* advise those of you who have never played the board game to adopt it.

I have a lot of experience backing that recommendation up, but feel free to ask others who've played for their opinions, of course

(oh, there's a related optional rule that came out in the Erratta, it states that FR and GB can *never* ally - not even if at peace after the harsh unconditional -- **UNLESS** one of them has ceased to be a major power --- which was another optional rule -- you can find the original rules online if you want to see the actual restrictions on FR/GB peace, and the rules for losing dominance, since i don't think the're included in teh game)





bresh -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/27/2007 2:11:19 PM)

Sounds more like empire in harms.

Different ships + map editing ? We got Guard cavalry  to ?
I only know the basic empire in arms. So wanna know how much has changes ?

Kind Regards
Bresh




Marshall Ellis -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/27/2007 2:38:36 PM)

Bresh:

1. The map is different from that std EiA BUT has more minors (From EiH4.0).
2. We're have added the ship types (Light ships - good for piracy missions, Transports - good for transporting). These are different types than std EiA BUT the naval combat is the same as EiA.
3. We have implemented the minor diplomacy of EiH 3.0 where you can influence / ally minor nations.

That's about the only add-ins from EiH that we included. If you've played EiA then you shouldn't have a problem with EiANW.







Jabba -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/27/2007 3:15:55 PM)

quote:

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....


So is this there as an optional rule in the computer version?




bresh -> RE: AAR - Ralegh (11/27/2007 5:02:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jabba

quote:

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....


So is this there as an optional rule in the computer version?


As far as i remember its a optional rule in the boardgame rules, though never heard it not beeing used.

Regards
Bresh




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.929688E-02