Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Post Reply
Jaif
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 2:02 am

Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by Jaif »

Another problem I had with the boardgame (and remember, this is from memory of stuff 10+ years ago) was that a winning strategy for Britain was to take over N. African states with high manpower and then just crank out loads of infantry and stuff them everywhere. It was amusing, but it was also very unrealistic.

Is there anything in this game to stop that?

-Jeff
montesaurus
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:33 pm

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by montesaurus »

What are Spain and Turkey doing while GB is running rampant in North Africa. If I was a Turk/Spanish player I would be pointing out to the British that it was not in their best interest to get to greedy in North Africa. A Brits nightmare in this game is a French/Spanish coalition. It's not to hard to send a Spanish fleet to Africa with a French corp or two, plus a good French leader. The Brits don't have much for leaders early in the game. Then, of course, the Brit has to garrison Gibraltor well if the Spanish player is hostile to him! Or, with creative players, Turkey and Spain could form an alliance to contest GB in the Mediterranean. Lets see how long Britain can keep the French blockaded when he's having to commit navies to counter a SP/TU coalition!
GB can probably obtain a province, maybe two in North Africa, but only with concessions, and deal making with the Spanish/Turks. This is especailly true in the early stages of the game when the size of the British army is pathetic. In the many games I've played I have never seen the British obtain much in North Africa. I would suggest perhaps that your SP/TU players were intimidated by the quality of GB troops. Unfortuanately for the Brits, they can be attritted down to nothing pretty quickly. Plus, their superiority in morale can be offsetted by cavalry superiority, which either the Spanish or Turk can obtain against him.

Hopefully this will give you an idea how to counter this dilemma you have posed!
montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792
User avatar
ardilla
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:55 pm
Location: Castellon, Spain
Contact:

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by ardilla »

Hi to all,

This is happenning at my EiA boardgame right now and I am sorry to tell you that it is not that easy. In my case I play Spain and the Turk is alliaded with GB and is selling all the small states (besides morroco and argel, that still under my control by now) the rest of the North Africa till Egypt is british, also palestine)
The main problem is that either Spain or Turky are alliaes of the british and it is complicated for us (SP+TU) to be at war with GB, no trade money and very dangerous for our fleets.

Besides that, what I think you are asking for is for the north africa manpower rule from the EIH, where only SP and TU are allowed to obtein, avoiding GB of taking control of these countries. I think it is very reallistic rule that should be optional in the computer game, as many others I read here will be in the computer version of the game from the EiH.

Regards.
Santiago y cierra España!!!
Single Malt
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:37 pm

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by Single Malt »

Ah yes those 4.5 north african line troops.Our house rule limited their role to Militia ,hopefully this was considered by Matrix.
There is lots of wiggle room between Liberty and Death.
YohanTM2
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:43 am
Location: Toronto

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by YohanTM2 »

ORIGINAL: Single Malt

Ah yes those 4.5 north african line troops.Our house rule limited their role to Militia ,hopefully this was considered by Matrix.

chuckle, militia makes a lot of sense. Not many colonial troops with the morale, training and live fire experience of the Brits.
User avatar
ardilla
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:55 pm
Location: Castellon, Spain
Contact:

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by ardilla »

I guess Single Malt meant that that manpower can only be used to "buy" militia factors, since the british doesnt have them, it is like the EiH north africa manpower collection rule but worst for the SP and TU [:(]

I personally prefer the one from the EiH where only SP and TU are allowed to get this manpower production, is more logical, well, actually not for SP, but is an upgrade for this less considered countries in the original game that gives them a bit of advantage that IMO doesnt affect the game much.

Regards.
Santiago y cierra España!!!
User avatar
Mark Breed
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:32 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by Mark Breed »

Yes, it can be a problem. But, note that only the North African troops that are in corps have the high morale. Those in garrison have their standard morale.

I believe the General magazine did publish alternate rules for the North African nations under an article on Turkey.

Regards,
Mark
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by NeverMan »

Personally, I have never had a problem with this rule or situation in any of my games.
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Britain+N.Africa=Infantry factory?

Post by Marshall Ellis »

Hey guys:

Nothing to stop this British colonial behavior in North Africa other than a qualified / experienced Spanish, Turkish player :-)

Thank you
Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”