Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: CleverDevils2 AAR

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> After Action Reports >> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/6/2008 4:59:45 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Yes; Berlin is French occupied; but - from what I understand; having your capitol occupied forces you to SUE FOR PEACE; it does not force you to accept an UNconditional (which is what I am asking for [what I think I am
ENTITLED to given the current state of the Prussian army])  I don't know if the game is
making Prussa attept to do CONDITIONAL surrenders or not.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 91
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/6/2008 5:26:53 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
Thats alot of French forces to keep in ports all game, waiting for just that move.
Regards
Bresh


Correct. Which is why I called it "the ideal French setup". And, I wasn't talking about just blockading them. If the French player sets himself up correctly, there is a single collection of fleet strengths that forces GB to use the maximum number of ships to blockade (I think it's 14 in each of 5 ports, with 9 heavy ships each, but don't quote me on that, and then the rest scattered). If France does it correctly, GB is left with only about 5-10 ships remaining to guard the homeland. Having the Swedes show up on Frances side makes it much more difficult to keep them all in port.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 92
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/6/2008 5:30:04 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
If GB and Russia allied and if France setup that way, GB could also ask Russia for some troops in GB before Russia starts invading something in Scandinavia.

If GB and Russia are allied, then the only way either of them can control either country is if they are already influenced. If allied, declaring war would break the alliance with the other major. If neutral, at least in the board game (perhaps not in the computer game?), they cannot roll for control.


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 93
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/6/2008 5:33:59 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
Only a small part of French navy can actually carry anything mentionworthy.
France with 39H+15H-Hollandish ships +20 transports.
At best thats 6 invasion fleets ? If you can settle for ~10i corps.
And if your want around 15 faktor corps, its 4 invasion fleets.

This is correct, and brings up a flaw in my analysis: I'm working primarily from fear of what happened in board-game incidents. The board game allowed 10 factors (always), and did not distinguish between cav and inf.

Since heavy and light fleets cannot carry corps together, this limits what France can bring. If using 9-factor heavy fleets, that's a cav and 7 inf. France COULD carry 2-3 boys on the light fleet that's with it, but that would limit is ability to field a real army elsewhere in Europe.

So, this point is very valid, and it's one I hadn't given a lot of thought to. I will do some playtesting against the computer. I'll change the default French setup to the ideal one, and then play a human France against a human GB and see what happens.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 94
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/6/2008 5:44:54 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
GB did almost nothing this turn. Moved a few fleets around. Could be positioning for an assault across the channel (by boat, of course). Moved one of the Swedish fleets to London, left the other (heavy) in Stockholm.

Also, there are reports that a small light fleet just "appeared" in a port north of London. Newskeepers and busybodies are attempting to discern the meaning of this act as we write this. Could GB have actually been employing <gasp> pirates? Or, perhaps this was a fleet being called back from anti-piracy duty.

--- EXTRA!!! ---
This just in: GB's Prime Minister has just made a statement declaring that GB does not employ pirates. This fleet was thus obviously coming back from combatting evil French pirates on the high seas.

Members of the opposition party were not available for comment, but are considered to consider the PM's statements as not very useful for promoting peaceful dialog with the one-handed Corsican Usurper. This reporter noted that all of the normal members of the opposition were at a rally posting signs that read "Make Love, not War!"

Members of the PM's own party were likewise unavailable for comment, but rumors have it that they were all playing a newfangled game called "gaulf" or "gulf" or something like that.

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 2/6/2008 5:45:46 PM >


_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 95
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/7/2008 2:23:55 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
If GB and Russia allied and if France setup that way, GB could also ask Russia for some troops in GB before Russia starts invading something in Scandinavia.

If GB and Russia are allied, then the only way either of them can control either country is if they are already influenced. If allied, declaring war would break the alliance with the other major. If neutral, at least in the board game (perhaps not in the computer game?), they cannot roll for control.



All can roll for controll, but nations you at War with get +2
Only allied get a chance of control, only if noone else wants to, or if they have the minor influensed.

I tried write it in 2 paragraps to avoid mixing it, i guess i need to try again :)

If GB and Russia allied. Gb only gets control if its influensed. But then GB and Rus could talk about how to combine it. There are lotta options, 1 is like i said, wait, and reinforce GB with a Russian corps there.
But this would give France a hard time to get a good foothold in GB. But there are more ways.

If GB & Russia non-allied when/if Russia dows Denmark/Sweden, France doesnt always get control even with the +2.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 96
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/7/2008 7:38:42 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
If GB & Russia non-allied when/if Russia dows Denmark/Sweden, France doesnt always get control even with the +2.

Regards
Bresh

True. However, don't forget that France (generally) get's a +1 for being dominant, and another +1 to +3 for his relationship with the minor(s).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 97
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/8/2008 2:39:36 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
If GB & Russia non-allied when/if Russia dows Denmark/Sweden, France doesnt always get control even with the +2.

Regards
Bresh

True. However, don't forget that France (generally) get's a +1 for being dominant, and another +1 to +3 for his relationship with the minor(s).


As far as i remember the rules the control check is compared to d12 rolls ?
So about the Russian prewar change is quite minor,
Its only aprox 1 in 6 games France gain control where they wouldnt before...

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 98
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/9/2008 11:53:21 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
OK; here are the results for the 1st half of May 1805:

France creates Piedmont & Saxony as free states

France does dp on Baden & Nassau making both neutral (from "Prussia Influenced")

Austria does dp on Hesse - no result
Austria does dp on Oldenberg - gets Influence

Russia does dp on Oldenberg - reverses Austrian influence; Oldenberg now neutral again ... OOPS
("I would rather fight allies than be one." - N. Boneparte)

Turkey does dp on Tunisia & Papacy both unsuccessful

Prussia does dp on Berg; gets Influence
Prussia does dp on Hesse - no result

France DOWs Munster - Austria gets control
France DOWs Oldenberg - SPAIN gets control
[Matrix; could you add variation of this smiley - with a tri-cornered hat &
one hand inside its vest?]

France attacks Stuttgart with Masenna & 2 corp vs 1 Prussian corp - no leader
Chits are Esc. Assulat vs Defend;
Casulties : 5 Pr I, 1 Pr C; 1 Fr I





France makes successful breakins in Oldenberg; Munster & Modena
Unsuccessful attemps in Wurzberg & Stettin; no attemp in Madgeberg


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gwheelock -- 2/9/2008 11:55:55 PM >

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 99
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 1:33:51 AM   
trw2264

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 12/18/2002
Status: offline
It has been interesting reading the back and forth commentaries about the game and the cookie-cutter strategies that some are presenting. What seems to have gotten lost is that there are humans behind the game countries and that risk is associated with all that is done and negotiated and what might be the medium term plan of the country involved.

Being Spain, it could be argued that I should have not attacked Portugal, but it was a risk. Spain went after Portugal for a particular reason. Yes, most of Portugal’s fleet was destroyed on a suicide run by GB, but what if GB had not received control of Portugal? Again, there is risk involved and Portugal’s fleet in now useless for the short-term in regards to Spain, British and/or French use. Is that good or bad? Only Spain, GB and France know what their plans are and they will not be shared in this forum.

This is a game and every human brings a strategy to the table and, more than likely that strategy will change as the game progresses. If this game had a set strategy that all the players should follow then there would not be much of a need for the diplomacy part of it. Instead we have Prussia that broke a mold that said that Prussia should not DoW on France, especially by himself. Perhaps Prussia knows something that none of us know. Perhaps Austria and Russia failed on their backing of Prussia after the game had started, but Prussia tried to gather allies by forcing Austria and Russia out of their comfort zone and dealing with France earlier than most games do. Again, it was a risk. I am sure that Prussia knew what the risks were and how he planned to react to various situations. Now that Prussia and France have mended their ways, Prussia has an open ticket to question Russian and Austrian allegiance. Perhaps Prussia is now in France’s camp and Prussia might turn its eyes to Russia and Austria to form Poland because you never know what the condition of Austria and/or Russia might be in after France gets done with them that could afford Prussia an opportunity. Maybe I am just feeding information to make Austria and Russia paranoid. You just never know. I, for one, am very interested in seeing what Prussia will do in the next 24 months.

As Spain I might be a bit more worried now because France might be in a different place to do its cycle of countries to get political points from or does the loss of Portugal’s fleet put Spain in a position to better negotiate with GB or France because there are less ships available from 3rd parties, thus affording Spain a better negotiating position? Perhaps the Spanish player is just a knucklehead and squandered the Portuguese navy? Maybe Spain had no interest in Portugal’s navy at all, but was looking at Portugal’s land forces instead for something in the future. I vote that the Spanish player was just a knucklehead and bet the farm on GB not getting Portugal and not suiciding Portugal’s fleet and now the Spanish player is doomed for not hedging his risk and he should just throw in the towel now, because a cookie-cutter idea was not used.

Who knows, perhaps this forum is full of disinformation from the various players. Remember we are still playing the game. Perhaps, being underestimated is an advantage. This is not a quantitative game, but a qualitative game. I am sure that this post can and might be flamed, but those individuals will be acting in ignorance because they do not see both sides of what information the player is being fed and the information that the player is feeding to others.

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 100
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 3:10:35 AM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Ok; here is the results for the rest of May, 1805 :

Turkey (AGAIN!) makes successful breakin on Cairo & (AGAIN!!!) loses the city combat.

Prussia loses 3 M to forage in Stettin

Britain attacks garrisons in La Havre & Saint-Malo making successful breakins
in both. Fleet in La Havre attempts to run blockade; fails & is scuttled.
Fleet in Saint-Malo attempts to run blockade, succeeds & subsequently
retreats to Cherbourg. (This is a bug & is reported in the Tech Support forum)
Casulties : 2 British Light ships; 1 French Heavy ship from Saint-Malo & 6 from
scuttled La Havre fleet.

The bug is that BLOCKADING fleet should get windgadge & didn't. British had
sufficient ships to guarentee tie given windgadge advantage (& thus win the
combat & force scuttling of Saint-Malo fleet as well.

To correct for this; a deal was made that France will NOT put a garrison in
Cherbourg; Britain will blockade with suffient force to guarentee winning any
combats (even WITH the windgadge bug) & then move the 2 corp that attacked
Saint-Malo to Cherbourg & force out the fleet in the June 1805 turn.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to trw2264)
Post #: 101
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 3:34:41 AM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Here are the results from the dp phase of June 1805:

Prussia attempts to unconditionally surrender to France. Due to a
program bug; this is not allowed if the national capitol is occupied.
(the bug is that if the national capitol is occupied; the player must
"sue for peace" before exiting the phase & then it doesn't count
UNconditional surrender as a successful "sue" & France is requireing
an unconditional)

Because of this; a deal was reached where France will remove the
garrison from Berlin (this removeing the "required" sue) & Prussia
will then sue in July. France will also "unbesiege" the garrisons in
Stettin; Magdeberg; Wurzberg & Wurttemberg so that Prussia doesn't
lose any more factors & can get as much $ & mp as possible. (I can't
reach the garrison in Posen)

-----

France DOWs Baden - Russia gets control
France DOWs Tuscany - Spain gets control
Austria gets influence in Dalmatia
Austria attemps alliance with Turkey (unsucessful)

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 102
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 5:13:13 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trw2264
Yes, most of Portugal’s fleet was destroyed on a suicide run by GB, but what if GB had not received control of Portugal?

Not technically a suicide run. It blockaded your fleet. If the die rolls had been reversed, you would have been stuck in port, unable to land in Portugal, and GB would have kept it due to the lapse of war. I felt that the potential payoff was worth taking a near-certain loss in the battle.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to trw2264)
Post #: 103
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 5:16:21 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock
To correct for this; a deal was made that France will NOT put a garrison in
Cherbourg; Britain will blockade with suffient force to guarentee winning any
combats (even WITH the windgadge bug) & then move the 2 corp that attacked
Saint-Malo to Cherbourg & force out the fleet in the June 1805 turn.


A noble offer from a noble person. In the game as well as in real life. Thanks!

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 104
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 11:06:24 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

British had sufficient ships to guarentee tie given windgadge advantage (& thus win the
combat & force scuttling of Saint-Malo fleet as well.


Tie goes the runner, not the blockader.

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 105
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 11:51:44 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1242
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

The bug is that BLOCKADING fleet should get windgadge & didn't. British had
sufficient ships to guarentee tie given windgadge advantage (& thus win the
combat & force scuttling of Saint-Malo fleet as well.

To correct for this; a deal was made that France will NOT put a garrison in
Cherbourg; Britain will blockade with suffient force to guarentee winning any
combats (even WITH the windgadge bug) & then move the 2 corp that attacked
Saint-Malo to Cherbourg & force out the fleet in the June 1805 turn.


This is very gentlemanly, but why doesn't France just agree to voluntarily scuttle the fleet in his next reinforcement phase? That's allowed in the EiA rules, is it not allowed in EiANW?


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 106
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 11:57:09 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1242
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
Tie goes the runner, not the blockader.


No, I don't think so. Ties in naval combat always go to the defender. In this case the defender is the blockader, and so should win ties. In this case, despite the fact that the combat occurs in the GB turn, the attacker is France because it is his fleets that are moving to try to end the blockade.

quote:

6.3.4.1 DETERMINING VICTORY: ... If both sides have surviving ships and losses were equal, the side that attacked loses the naval combat and the other side wins it.


(I still think the default action when a port is attacked and is blockaded should be to scuttle the fleet without a combat, because that's what most normal EiA players do, but that's another argument).


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 107
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 5:51:28 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

The bug is that BLOCKADING fleet should get windgadge & didn't. British had
sufficient ships to guarentee tie given windgadge advantage (& thus win the
combat & force scuttling of Saint-Malo fleet as well.

To correct for this; a deal was made that France will NOT put a garrison in
Cherbourg; Britain will blockade with suffient force to guarentee winning any
combats (even WITH the windgadge bug) & then move the 2 corp that attacked
Saint-Malo to Cherbourg & force out the fleet in the June 1805 turn.


This is very gentlemanly, but why doesn't France just agree to voluntarily scuttle the fleet in his next reinforcement phase? That's allowed in the EiA rules, is it not allowed in EiANW?



Because there were also pp gains/losses that need to be corrected. This won't
completely correct them; but it's the best idea I could come up with.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 108
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 5:57:22 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


I still think the default action when a port is attacked and is blockaded should be to scuttle the fleet without a combat, because that's what most normal EiA players do, but that's another argument).



Yah; most players do that because they are -probably- going to lose the breakout
attempt; lose a pp for that; then have to scuttle anyway & lose ANOTHER pp.

The problem is that EIA gave f2f players the option (& some decided to take the
chance). To speed up the game (reduce the pbem back-&-forth); Marshall intentionally
changed this so that there is no pp loss for the scuttle after combat. This means that
the correct action for the defender is ALWAYS attempt to break out because there
is no downside & he may at least cost the attacker a ship or two.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 109
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 11:23:53 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

British had sufficient ships to guarentee tie given windgadge advantage (& thus win the
combat & force scuttling of Saint-Malo fleet as well.


Tie goes the runner, not the blockader.

Nope. I've tested this exhaustively: The blockader wins all ties.

There is a nebulous statement in the rules that can be interpretted two ways. I can't reproduce it from here, but it boils down to the difference between interceptions and blockades. I think the person who wrote the rules intended to say that the blockader wins the ties (because that was in the original rules), but it had to be changed due to the wording "phasing stack". Anyhow, the rules state wins and losses in the section on regular interceptions. In a regular interception, the phasing player wins ties. But, there's a small clause somewhere that makes blockades not be interceptions (or, something like that).

NOTE: I'm not sure whether this includes attempts to run the blockade from the sea zone. I didn't test that.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 110
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/13/2008 11:26:47 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

The bug is that BLOCKADING fleet should get windgadge & didn't. British had
sufficient ships to guarentee tie given windgadge advantage (& thus win the
combat & force scuttling of Saint-Malo fleet as well.

To correct for this; a deal was made that France will NOT put a garrison in
Cherbourg; Britain will blockade with suffient force to guarentee winning any
combats (even WITH the windgadge bug) & then move the 2 corp that attacked
Saint-Malo to Cherbourg & force out the fleet in the June 1805 turn.


This is very gentlemanly, but why doesn't France just agree to voluntarily scuttle the fleet in his next reinforcement phase? That's allowed in the EiA rules, is it not allowed in EiANW?


Because there was a 3 point political swing in France's favor as a result of the errant combat. GB should have collected +2, but actually wound up at -1. France should have disgorged -2, but instead gained +1.

This won't be perfect, but it will at least move things a little closer to what they should be.

I'm going to change the naval setups for the future, to take this bug into account. But, it will be hard to do it. Takes a lot more ships when you don't have wind guage.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 111
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/14/2008 12:59:28 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
8.8 Fleets of a major power that are at war with blockading fleets may attempt to leave that port (run the blockade) but will be automatically intercepted by the blockading enemy major power’s stack.

9.3.1 Determining Victory

A side that does not lose all of its ships and also loses fewer ships than the other side wins a naval combat and the other side loses it.

In naval combat by initiation: if both sides have surviving ships and losses were equal, the side that attacked (phasing side) loses the naval combat and the other side (non-phasing side) wins it.

In naval combat by interception: if both sides have surviving ships and losses were equal, the side that attacked (phasing side) wins the naval combat.

This is the rule pair that introduces the ambiguity. 8.8 says that running a blockade causes the blockader to automatically "intercept".

Then, in 9.3.1, it says the side that attacked (phasing side) wins if by interception.

Technically, this should imply that the phasing side wins all ties. However, this isn't the way it works, and it's not the way it SHOULD work, either, at least in reference to the old rules. The attacker has to break out. The blockader is NOT the attacker (although, I'm sure the French disagree :)). The fleet attempting to leave the port is attacking.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 112
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/14/2008 4:00:26 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
6.3.1.1 NAVAL ATTACKERIDEFENDER DETERMINATION: If there is more than one enemy major power present, the "attacker" decides which will be the "defender". The attacker is the phasing side if 6.2.4 applies or the non-phasing intercepting side if the combat is caused by an interception (see 6.2.3). The defender (at the attacker's option) comprises any one defender's stack that is present.

The intercepting fleet is always the attacker and blockading fleet always intercepts a waring fleet trying to leave a port. Therefore the program is correct in giving the blockading fleet the win if a tie.

< Message edited by zaquex -- 2/14/2008 4:16:09 AM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 113
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/14/2008 9:55:08 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
It's possible we played this wrong in the past. I'm reading the original rules, and they would seem to indicate that the blockader is the attacker.

I remember distinctly a rule somewhere that said the intercepting stack is the attacker unless the combat is in a blockade box, but I can't find it now.

As it is worded in the EiANW rulebook, it would seem that the blockading fleet LOSES ties. However, this is not the way the computer does it. Further, I would lobby against changing the program, because I'm pretty sure we found an official source that told us "blockader wins ties".

If the way the computer plays it is reversed, it will make it MUCH tougher for GB to even have a chance at winning. No matter what GB does in setup, France is favored to break out of at least one port. GB simply doesn't have enough ships to blockade all of France's forces.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 114
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/19/2008 10:30:25 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Ok; here are the results from the June Land phase

France attacks Russian controlled Baden with Massena & 2 corp
Chits are Esc. Assault vs Esc Counter Attack
Casulties 1 Fr I; 6 Baden I, 1 Baden C




Subsequent breakin attempt was unsuccessful; but the 1 Baden I died on Russian turn.
France assults Florence; successful breakin; Florence garrison surrenders.

Turkey makes successful (AGAIN) breakin roll on Cairo & FINALLY
kills the last 2 Egytian Cav in the corp garrisoning the city.

France unbeseiges Berlin; Stettin; Magdeberg; Wurzberg & Wurrtemberg as per agreement.

France makes unsuccessful breakin attempt on La Havre (La Havre remained a legitimate
target & was not covered by the deal to correct the bug with the Naval blockade combat;
only Saint Malo & Cherbourg were covered under that.

Britain moves 1 British & 1 Swedish corp from Saint Malo to Cherbourg as per agreement.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gwheelock -- 2/19/2008 10:41:49 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 115
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/20/2008 12:23:52 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
I wonder how we can tell if the bug is 50/50 or an intermittent bug.

Anyhow, the British moved all kinds of stuff around this turn, but did essentially nothing except attack Cherbourg to fulfill the conditions of the agreement.

NOTE: If the British do not exit Cherbourg on their naval phase, they are considered fair game. GB is pouting over this, because if they had still been in St. Malo, there was a fletch in that city, making France have to roll higher. :( Waaaaaa! Now I have to leave French soil. Waaaaaaa!

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 116
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/20/2008 12:56:08 AM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Yes; here is a shot of the current (June 1805) coastal setup.

(& if you are so brokenhearted about leaving French soil; just move
that fleet out of the channel & I'll bring "French" soil to you ... Scotland has
a nice French ring to it >I< think - Le Emperour Napoleon )




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gwheelock -- 2/20/2008 1:00:59 AM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 117
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/20/2008 8:15:53 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
OK; at the end of June 1805; the politcal standings are :






Attachment (1)

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 118
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/20/2008 8:16:31 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
And the total VPs are :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 119
RE: CleverDevils2 AAR - 2/20/2008 9:09:52 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
See? France is the one to beat, guys. Let's go get 'im! I'll commit my whole army to the task, anyhow.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> After Action Reports >> RE: CleverDevils2 AAR Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109