Pre January 1805 reinforcements (Full Version)

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



Message


hellfirejet -> Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/22/2009 4:52:49 PM)

Hi folks,
I feel that there should be away to implement pre January 1805 reinforcements, I mean that each country would have a defense budget program already in place prior to the game start date, October,November & December 1804 ?

So that there should be units waiting to come on stream as reinforcements for January & February 1805.

As per the following examples =

France = 4 Infantry, 2 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Russia = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Britain = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 2 Heavy + 2 Light
Spain = 1 Infantry, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Prussia = 2 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Austria = 1 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Turkey = 1 Infantry

Note the above are just examples, so do any other gamers feel that this should be taken into account ?







pzgndr -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/22/2009 5:40:18 PM)

A pre-game economic phase would be a nice option.  Some others have tried this in the boardgame and have suggested this here.  Marshall indicated some difficulties with trying to make that happen, but just the same it would be a nice option down the road if it could be implemented.




Dancing Bear -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/22/2009 10:39:51 PM)

I'm not sure if this is a big deal, and maybe the game designers incorporated this into the initial force setups.




easterner -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/22/2009 11:48:56 PM)

I'm a big fan of Dec 1804 production and have used since 1st game of boardgame. I do not like waiting nearly 6 mos for reinforcements, Fr & Brits were at war since 1802.

I indeed mentioned this after v1.00




hellfirejet -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 12:18:27 AM)

waiting for reinforcements is wrong, they should appear every month without exception, as easterner said France & Great Britain were at war for long periods off time during this period in history, and as such had extensive budgets in place for military growth, I think this is a major issue that needs addressing?




Dancing Bear -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 2:47:08 AM)

Maybe you could do this, but you probably reduce the starting strengths of the armies to keep the game balanced like the designers were thinking.




hellfirejet -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 8:31:49 AM)

Hi Dancing Bear,
                       I was thinking about a way to implement this PRE - JANUARY REINFORCEMENT effect, I don't know if Marshall could maybe add them to the counter pool, then add them in the same way that leaders start in a delayed fashion ?

                It works for LEADERS I see no reason why other counters like Infantry etc cannot work in they same way!![:)]




iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 10:04:15 AM)

I continue to parrot the notion that you want a different game, HFJ. (Which is not a bad thing.)

This was done in the 1792-1815 scenario. You can then have all of 11 years to start early. [:D]

The basic premise is that at the time they started the war, no one was ready. Thus no militia. Nothing in the pipeline, etc. I am not against this as an option, but otherwise having played a few games, I don't see the need. Just like other issues you have, you just learn to play within the game.

RE: getting troops each month. No. Again, this is a mechanic done on purpose. Even in WWI or WWII after the rise of nationalism and mass armies, you didn't necessarily get troops by snapping your finger. They take time. The 1 month mil, 3 mo inf, 5 mo cav, 6 mo art/gd works to simulate that. I don't think that anything's broken here, so nothing would need to be fixed. You can bend the game so far. At a certain point, it's no longer the same game.

I mean, if you want a more accurate system, then you would need hexes with printed roads rather than spaces. I'm not suggesting this, but maybe you need to design something like that with all of the things that you want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi folks,
I feel that there should be away to implement pre January 1805 reinforcements, I mean that each country would have a defense budget program already in place prior to the game start date, October,November & December 1804 ?

So that there should be units waiting to come on stream as reinforcements for January & February 1805.

As per the following examples =

France = 4 Infantry, 2 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Russia = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Britain = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 2 Heavy + 2 Light
Spain = 1 Infantry, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Prussia = 2 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Austria = 1 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Turkey = 1 Infantry

Note the above are just examples, so do any other gamers feel that this should be taken into account ?









easterner -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 5:57:57 PM)

quote:

iamspamus the basic premise is that at the time they started the war, no one was ready.


Uh... what part of Fr & Brit at war already 3 years was unclear? The wars started in 1793. Nations dropped in and out, even switched sides multi-times from 1793-1815. England was at war from 2/93 to 6/15 with peace pauses only in 1802 (Peace of Amiens) and 1814 (Elba exile) but was at war with US still in 1814. 22 years of near continuous war, I doubt greatly anyone was unprepared in 1805. Your statement would be accurate only if Fr/Eng not at war option is chosen.

My solution in Board Game was each nation produced 12/04 based on their printed rating only. No minors, no trade, no lending. Anything not used was lost so no $$$$ or manpower carried over to '05. So game started unchanged but Jan '05 had some militia, March some Inf, May some Cav. Worked everytime used, none of 7 players ever objected.




Jimmer -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 6:38:59 PM)

I disagree strongly with the contention that not having troops show up is "wrong" somehow. Every power receives many times the per-turn incomes worth of troops, and they get to place them before January on top of that. Perhaps you could take some troops out of your pre-game allotment, and then put them on the map in March, May, or June (as appropriate).

Don't like that idea? Then you are modifying the game, and upsetting the balance of power.




hellfirejet -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 7:02:46 PM)

Hi Jimmer,
Ok! as easterner said Britain was almost always at war from 1792, she had massive investment in military terms, on going straight through the Napoleonic wars. Now I will speak from the naval point of view, Britains naval ship building could not cope with the demand for more ships, she had to use Merchant ship building yards to fill the naval build orders, so Britain had ships joining the fleet every month, not every 2 months or 3 months every month!




Jimmer -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/23/2009 7:50:49 PM)

Perhaps. However, you are still changing the balance of the game with such an option. For example, playing GB, the first thing I buy is a guard factor and some cavalry. Your solution would allow me to have them show up earlier than the game would otherwise allow. This would in turn allow GB to be MUCH more aggressive with the minors than she usually can afford.

I think you would be better off removing the troops from your initial allotment, and placing them at the right time for the troop. Unfortunately, that means doing some serious math in order to figure out the right percentages to use.




iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/24/2009 9:28:55 AM)

Baloney. England paid a lot of other guys to fight. They were "fighting" in Portugal/Spain in 1809 (four years after the start of the game) with the equivalent of 3 corps (I'm being generous here). So, nah, don't think so.

On your last part. So? Eia has it that you could have ships built every three months. Easy. I don't see the problem. Build a set each econ phase and viola, you have some coming in each three months. In fact, build lights and heavies and you have them coming in two of three months. Don't see the problem.


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi Jimmer,
Ok! as easterner said Britain was almost always at war from 1792, she had massive investment in military terms, on going straight through the Napoleonic wars. Now I will speak from the naval point of view, Britains naval ship building could not cope with the demand for more ships, she had to use Merchant ship building yards to fill the naval build orders, so Britain had ships joining the fleet every month, not every 2 months or 3 months every month!





hellfirejet -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/24/2009 9:34:39 AM)

Ok Guys,
I'm giving up on this game for now, I will wait and see what version 1.06 and the editor brings to the table, so maybe I can alter it to please me! After all that is why I buy games to please me.

I spend the money, to enjoy the experience off game play, and at the moment this one is not ticking all my boxes, so I have turned my attention to Crown of glory, World War 1 & War In The Pacific they have far more in depth detail and they do tick my boxes, so have fun with this diplomatic abstract combat fantasy game which is based loosely on the Napoleonic era.

There has to be options for the player to alter the game to suit him or her, I'm happy to play against the AI for I know it will improve over time, so I wish you all well for now, I will pop in now and again to read the posts, and see how Marshall is improving the game, I do like the game but it's not realistic enough for me at the moment.

While I'm here I will say this to all the players who have been playing this game for years, I'm quite sure that the original game designers, would have liked to upgrade the rules and game play over the years, Rules are guide lines, and are often interpreted differently by players, also they are not written in stone or blood, and to my knowledge were not the 11th commandment, thou shalt not alter Empire In Arms rules!

People used to think the world was flat and boy were they wrong, so I rest my case please have an open mind and help Marshall with this game it has the potential to be fantastic.[:)]




iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/24/2009 9:57:54 AM)

Uh...Are you really going there? So, why was there NO ACTION AT ALL until August 1805? Hmmm? Between 1802 and August 1805 what happened? NADA. Just because someone's at war DOESN'T mean that they are ready to fight. Look at your the allies in WWII.

War reumed in mid-1803. Oops. Nothing happened that year. Napoleon crowned himself in Dec 1804. Nothing happened up til that time.

In early 1805 Nap moved to the coast of England. In mid-1805 (Julyish) the French Navy went on an expedition to distract the British navy allowing a French invasion of Britain. Still no land action.

Nap then sat there until August, when the Austrians began to marshall. Nap moved on the Austrians setting up the battle of Ulm. So, nice try, but if you build up your militia in JUNE 1805, then you can have them ready for the beginning of combat (you know, when the fighting actually started) one month early in July. What do you think that Jan-June timeframe is??? It is the setup for the starting of conflict. (Also, it was easier in game terms to make it 11 full years AND it was the month after Napoleon crowned himself.)

Therefore, I stand by my assessment that NEITHER side was ready in Dec 1804. Just because players jump out to get minors in the game, doesn't mean we need to push the start back one econ phase. If you fight in the winter of 1805 (Jan-Feb) with no militia and on reinf, then you'll have to suck it up.

As I stated before, I don't mind it as an option. But I don't think it's needed. (Sorry about my tone. I was responding in kind.)


quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner

quote:

iamspamus the basic premise is that at the time they started the war, no one was ready.


Uh... what part of Fr & Brit at war already 3 years was unclear? The wars started in 1793. Nations dropped in and out, even switched sides multi-times from 1793-1815. England was at war from 2/93 to 6/15 with peace pauses only in 1802 (Peace of Amiens) and 1814 (Elba exile) but was at war with US still in 1814. 22 years of near continuous war, I doubt greatly anyone was unprepared in 1805. Your statement would be accurate only if Fr/Eng not at war option is chosen.

My solution in Board Game was each nation produced 12/04 based on their printed rating only. No minors, no trade, no lending. Anything not used was lost so no $$$$ or manpower carried over to '05. So game started unchanged but Jan '05 had some militia, March some Inf, May some Cav. Worked everytime used, none of 7 players ever objected.





iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/24/2009 10:06:15 AM)

In an argument you have to be able to at least hear other sides, even if you don't agree with them.

I don't want you to give up. I'm sorry, if I ran you off. I don't mean to. There is a difference in some changes to a game and radically redesigning the game to the point where it is not the same game. This is a loosely [:D] adapted version of EIA/EIH. There are some core ideas for the game that can't change. These include the order of play (ie. Eng/Fra get to choose when they go), the econ phase, the corps structure, reinf, etc.

If you made it where you could get reinf every turn and have 37 kinds of ships with a hex map, then you are not playing EIA. That's why I said I think that you want to design a different game. Not saying that you can't like this too. I have several Napoleonic (board) games and like them all. They all do something different. EIA is a grand strategic game. Similar to the strategic map on Total War. Other games, including miniatures, focuses more on tactical level. That's why I suggested that you might try to find wooden ships and iron men.

Now don't get me wrong. I love add-ons to a game, chrome, historical flavor. Whatever. but it has to balance history with playability. I'm sure we've all played those games that were tactically brill, but boring as heck to play. That's what I'd like to avoid. So, some changes will fly, some should be options, and some (especially those that change the fundamentals of the game) should be avoided...in my opinion.

Hope to see you around.


quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Ok Guys,
I'm giving up on this game for now, I will wait and see what version 1.06 and the editor brings to the table, so maybe I can alter it to please me! After all that is why I buy games to please me.

I spend the money, to enjoy the experience off game play, and at the moment this one is not ticking all my boxes, so I have turned my attention to Crown of glory, World War 1 & War In The Pacific they have far more in depth detail and they do tick my boxes, so have fun with this diplomatic abstract combat fantasy game which is based loosely on the Napoleonic era.

There has to be options for the player to alter the game to suit him or her, I'm happy to play against the AI for I know it will improve over time, so I wish you all well for now, I will pop in now and again to read the posts, and see how Marshall is improving the game, I do like the game but it's not realistic enough for me at the moment.

While I'm here I will say this to all the players who have been playing this game for years, I'm quite sure that the original game designers, would have liked to upgrade the rules and game play over the years, Rules are guide lines, and are often interpreted differently by players, also they are not written in stone or blood, and to my knowledge were not the 11th commandment, thou shalt not alter Empire In Arms rules!

People used to think the world was flat and boy were they wrong, so I rest my case please have an open mind and help Marshall with this game it has the potential to be fantastic.[:)]






pzgndr -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/24/2009 12:30:57 PM)

quote:

Don't like that idea? Then you are modifying the game, and upsetting the balance of power.


This really does not advance the discussion about an option for a pre-game economic phase. The whole balance of power issue is debatable, since the bidding process supposedly makes every game "perfectly" balanced regardless of whatever the base game setup is all about. Whatever. Whether this option would be good or bad for the 1805 campaign game is up to the players. I would argue that in the other later scenarios where MPs have in fact been at war for some period, that a pre-game economic phase makes more sense and should be considered. As an option. The idea where each nation would produce based on their printed rating only (no minors, no trade, no lending) appears perfectly reasonable.




iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/25/2009 8:43:10 AM)

As I said, if you want it as an optional: by all means go for it. It shouldn't be that hard to code. However, if I am to get a snide attempt at a poor history lesson explaining why FOR SURE this should be the case, well, then I'll work to set it straight...in my opinion.

As I stated, I could care less if it's an optional. I may even use it. But, please, don't try to sell me on why it's "necessary" or "correct" or whatever. No rancor intended.

This per se was not the "balance of power" issue, but HFJ's desire to change virtually everything about the game. That was more what I was talking about regarding game balance and modifying the game. Optionals, chrome, etc. those are fine. I would caveat it with, they are fine as long as they don't make too much work or affect playability.

Finally, I'd say that your suggestion for a pre-game pseudo-buy ahead is not a good way to do it. My suggestion, if this was an optional is just to do an econ phase ahead. No new mechanic. Just the system.

Just my $.02.


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Don't like that idea? Then you are modifying the game, and upsetting the balance of power.


This really does not advance the discussion about an option for a pre-game economic phase. The whole balance of power issue is debatable, since the bidding process supposedly makes every game "perfectly" balanced regardless of whatever the base game setup is all about. Whatever. Whether this option would be good or bad for the 1805 campaign game is up to the players. I would argue that in the other later scenarios where MPs have in fact been at war for some period, that a pre-game economic phase makes more sense and should be considered. As an option. The idea where each nation would produce based on their printed rating only (no minors, no trade, no lending) appears perfectly reasonable.





Marshall Ellis -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/25/2009 2:17:36 PM)

An easier way to do this would be to maybe start the scenario in December 1804. This would autotrigger an eco phase.




pzgndr -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/25/2009 4:14:46 PM)

quote:

This per se was not the "balance of power" issue, but HFJ's desire to change virtually everything about the game... Optionals, chrome, etc. those are fine.


I agree. I'm not sure if HFJ was actually proposing to change the core game rather than suggest an option. The core game should be classic EiA rules by default except where Marshall simply cannot implement all of the interactive actions and such, and all other deviations should be game options. This should be generally understood by everyone.

quote:

An easier way to do this would be to maybe start the scenario in December 1804. This would autotrigger an eco phase.


Could you get the game to start at just the economic phase? With the Editor we should be able to easily change the start date ourselves but this would include all of the other December 1804 phases and that may not be desired. A game option to start at the previous economic phase would be preferable?




easterner -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/25/2009 5:10:04 PM)

quote:

(Sorry about my tone. I was responding in kind.)


Actually your tone was better than mine, so I'll give you 1 point for that.

WW2 the Allies and German's were equally unready for war 9/39. The panzers were packed with Mk I trainers and the West Wall was held by a passing troop of HJ's and three girls picking flowers. in 5/40 the Allies were fully ready for war, 1918 style. They were fighting in Norway at Narvik and winning. The Kriegsmarine surface fleet was resting quietly on the bottom or was in port for repairs. The U-boats were steaming home beaten after finding out "toink" torpedoes don't get it done.

As 1805 started the new La Grande Armee was readying for Invasion of Britain, 1805 events would force it east.

The Brits meanwhile were busy retaking all the territories that they just finished giving back to France in '02. The problem is more the EiA economic model. No country (except Turkey which can't) can churn out troops at EiA rates long term. The conquered minors make nations too powerful. But nothing built for 6 months is nonsense.

The Conq minors should contribute $$$ only no MP, forced conscripts runaway and desert in large numbers. In additon to current Minor Corps, Minor Divisions should be added. while treated as a Corps in all things the are tiny (3-1) but can be recruited from any Corpsless free state. So Free States produce troops, CONQ produce $$$$.

Amother item needed is Random Events. Famines, bad harvests, manpower shortages, revolts, American persnickety-ness, Barbary raids, Tribute to make them go away, leader death (natural) New Viziers, good harvests, Ultra bad weather (lose movement point) horse shortage, timber shortage (ship building).

Many folks nostalgically want EiA restored to original. I do not, for all its greatness it is in many ways bland and colorless, worse many flavor items were lost usually from pbem needs. So no Spanish Deguello, no Turkish "NO PRISONERS," no militia promotion. I don't like pre-picked surrender terms, interception orders or Support Ally choices.

I use fancy Nickmart counters and sneered at Soapyfrogs old styles. (Till I saw his screenprint, I may reconsider them. The contrast on map looked excellent)

I love new map, love little free states GARR, Don't mind naval change (just the mechanics), the original games naval OB was correct for all 50 gun SOL, new naval OB is wrong unless 50 gunners are factored out???? I don't like the OB. I checked Harry's OB years ago as I had 1805 OB, it matched perfectly, we must have owned same book.




Jimmer -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/25/2009 10:25:23 PM)

Well, my main point is that the total amount of factors each nation has should be kept the same, whether adding a pre-game phase or not. I can't remember the exact numbers, but for reference, let's say GB has

20i
1g
4c
(ignore ships)

She also earns quarterly (before conquering anything new) 51 money and 16 manpower, plus trade.

For me to agree with the concept, $27 (and trade) and 8 infantry should be removed from her starting forces, and then she be allowed to place them in January, March, May, and/or June, as approriate. So, she would start the game with 12i, 1g, 4c, and only some amount of money less than $24.

(Please forgive the errant use of the dollar sign; my keyboard doesn't have a pound symbol. It's not an attempt to "make the world American.")




DCWhitworth -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/25/2009 11:01:42 PM)

One thing that no one has mentioned that I would really like to see addressed is that no nation has any corps counters available in the first three months. That serioulsy reduces your flexibility.

One of the problems with having a pre-game economic phase is that there are no militia present at start. As France I would put no garrisons out, build all militia and have then turn up and garrison everywhere, then I would take my large Grandee Armee and bulging treasury and wage winter war on Prussia.




pzgndr -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/25/2009 11:28:46 PM)

These are good points. While I like the idea of an optional econ phase, it looks like there should be a number of restrictions - no minors, no trade, no lending, no militia? Being able to buy some corps counters and have a few modest reinforcements in the pipeline might be nice. But maybe the restrictions would make this more trouble than it's worth?

Maybe an optional reinforcements variant could be introduced? Say an MP could buy 10i or 2c if there were an econ phase. The game could randomly add say 1-5i and 0-1c (half max) and maybe a corps counter to the at-start reinforcement track. Something simple, to add a little suspense to the standard setups and opening moves.





easterner -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/26/2009 1:18:04 AM)

And what happens when Br lands and burns a Fleet or 5 as Morale 2 militia don't fight off 4.5 INF too well? Now you have to race troops back to coast, then comes March and Pr army grows, yours doesn't and in non-AI you may have to deal with Au & Rs come March too.




easterner -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/26/2009 1:22:30 AM)

I completely disagree, limits are better. However if limits are impossible some reduction as you posit may need doing, as after 1806 armies grow too fast as it is, why speed that up? Or as another suggested some pre-set reinforcements. The idea being get rid of the 6-mo dead zone of no Reinf.




DCWhitworth -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/26/2009 8:47:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner
And what happens when Br lands and burns a Fleet or 5 as Morale 2 militia don't fight off 4.5 INF too well? Now you have to race troops back to coast, then comes March and Pr army grows, yours doesn't and in non-AI you may have to deal with Au & Rs come March too.


Sorry, I didn't want to go into too much detail and waffle on for too long. I would most likely garrison major fleet bases with regulars.

Prussia will build what, 8 infantry ? Hardly going to make a huge difference and if I've freed up infantry garrisons by using militia then I will effectively have had my infantry reinforcement in January *plus* freedom to act and strike in winter because I've got lots of money.

If you are likely to be facing Austria, Prussia and Russia the optimal approach for France is to strike at once and try and knock one of them (Prussia is the best choice) out before the others can help them. Furthermore if you rush troops back to face a British incursion you are going to diminish your chances of beating the 'Grand Alliance', the war will be decided in Germany not by the French fleet.




iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/26/2009 12:12:23 PM)

This was a cumulation of many HFJ posts. Getting troops every month, adding more types of ships, etc. So, yes, it was changing the "core" game. And I disagree with your idea of "classic eia" being the corp. Nope. The "core" ideas of the game are the how the phases interact, dominance, special country benefits, movement rates, supplying, map structure, peace times and such. Any of these can be modified, without changing the core or destroying the game. Thus you could take "core" ideas and put them in any time that fits that style of war, from probably 1700ish to RRs in mid 1830s. This includes any variants, changes or even re-writes, such as EIH.

However, when you start changing the core, it no longer becomes EIA or anything like it. Getting infantry in every turn is not EIA, for one example. See his other posts for others.

As I've said in the past, I LOVE chrome. To some extent, the more the better. This is modified by a) not changing the game too much, b) historical accuaracy and c) playability. B and C should be in constant conflict. See World in Flames.

So, in this case, you are right, he wasn't changing the core of the game. But this was the culmination of several months of wanting to change almost every single aspect of the game core.

As I said on this subject, I don't know that any change is needed. I'd be all for this being an optional. It shouldn't be hard to implement starting during an econ phase first, I'd guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

This per se was not the "balance of power" issue, but HFJ's desire to change virtually everything about the game... Optionals, chrome, etc. those are fine.


I agree. I'm not sure if HFJ was actually proposing to change the core game rather than suggest an option. The core game should be classic EiA rules by default except where Marshall simply cannot implement all of the interactive actions and such, and all other deviations should be game options. This should be generally understood by everyone.

quote:

An easier way to do this would be to maybe start the scenario in December 1804. This would autotrigger an eco phase.


Could you get the game to start at just the economic phase? With the Editor we should be able to easily change the start date ourselves but this would include all of the other December 1804 phases and that may not be desired. A game option to start at the previous economic phase would be preferable?





iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/26/2009 12:16:00 PM)

Well, I don't think that it's a problem anyway. You wage cheapy war in the beginning or pay the cost...

Also, since winter fighting rarely happened, once again I have little problem with that. I mean there was Jena-Auerstadt that was fought in snow, but other than that, I can't think of any. Moscow skirmishes were fought as La Grande Armee retreated, but most would admit that this was a special occasion.

So, no problem with it happening (it is a game after all), but doing an extra phase to facilitate fighting in the first winter (when there was no fighting) just seems unnecessary to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

One thing that no one has mentioned that I would really like to see addressed is that no nation has any corps counters available in the first three months. That serioulsy reduces your flexibility.

One of the problems with having a pre-game economic phase is that there are no militia present at start. As France I would put no garrisons out, build all militia and have then turn up and garrison everywhere, then I would take my large Grandee Armee and bulging treasury and wage winter war on Prussia.





iamspamus -> RE: Pre January 1805 reinforcements (2/26/2009 12:25:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner

quote:

(Sorry about my tone. I was responding in kind.)


Actually your tone was better than mine, so I'll give you 1 point for that.


I WIN! I WIN! This is soccer after all... [sm=sign0031.gif][sm=happy0005.gif][sm=sign0066.gif]


quote:

The Brits meanwhile were busy retaking all the territories that they just finished giving back to France in '02. The problem is more the EiA economic model. No country (except Turkey which can't) can churn out troops at EiA rates long term. The conquered minors make nations too powerful. But nothing built for 6 months is nonsense.


OK. I don't have a problem with it. I've been Russia down to one province. Sure didn't see many troops for a while.


quote:

Amother item needed is Random Events. Famines, bad harvests, manpower shortages, revolts, American persnickety-ness, Barbary raids, Tribute to make them go away, leader death (natural) New Viziers, good harvests, Ultra bad weather (lose movement point) horse shortage, timber shortage (ship building).


I have one of these. I'll try to dig it up. I also like some of the variants that I played throughout the years.

quote:

Many folks nostalgically want EiA restored to original. I do not, for all its greatness it is in many ways bland and colorless, worse many flavor items were lost usually from pbem needs. So no Spanish Deguello, no Turkish "NO PRISONERS," no militia promotion. I don't like pre-picked surrender terms, interception orders or Support Ally choices.

I use fancy Nickmart counters and sneered at Soapyfrogs old styles. (Till I saw his screenprint, I may reconsider them. The contrast on map looked excellent)

I love new map, love little free states GARR, Don't mind naval change (just the mechanics), the original games naval OB was correct for all 50 gun SOL, new naval OB is wrong unless 50 gunners are factored out???? I don't like the OB. I checked Harry's OB years ago as I had 1805 OB, it matched perfectly, we must have owned same book.


I concur with this statement. I wish it would have made it to EIH 5.0 rather than 3.0, but hey, what can ya do? I don't think that we are too far off. This issue is just not a big deal for me. Maybe because I usually don't play France...I kill them. [:D]




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.4492188