<t> <br/> I echo Dancing Bears comments - More then the 3 options outlines in the General are not needed...<br/> <br/> I also agree that a breakout of the ships are not relevant (sorry Naval boys) - reducing the number of fleets ot the orginal number and assigning "ship equalivants" makes more sense...

Cossacks are not considered CORPS. but a single CAV Factor....thus are not usable to build supply.

<t> <br/> @treefrog<br/> <br/> My questions are: <br/> <br/> Q1. Does the program work reliably for both AI and PBEM? <br/> <br/> my response: AI is a joke - PBEM is playable, but you have to REALLY suspend your expectations that playing is like playing the old boardgame....<br/> <br/> Q2. Does the ...

<t> <br/> We are trying to make THIS game MORE like EIA right?<br/> <br/> Part of the importance of the orginal game was PLANNING...this allows bad planners work arounds.....<br/> <br/> This suggestion may be a potential time saver, but is NOT the way the game was designed - Jimmers comment in Post ...

<t> <br/> More naval action is not a bad thing.....this would be good....however, there is little that a more details ship subset would add....even when looking at a historical basis....<br/> <br/> The EIA game reflects this already based on the fleet abstract i mentioned before.....EIH tried to exp...

<t> <br/> Okay, we wont hijack the thread....<br/> <br/> I return the thread to its point of ship types etc.....<br/> <br/> The point I was trying to make it is that the way to deal with that is make ships a "factor" thing and not a specific the way Hellfirejet is proposing....<br/> <br/> The FLEET ...

Balance is a critical part of any game.....

What is the fun if you dont have as equal a chance as any other player to WIN the game?

It is possible that our definations of fun are very different.....

<t> <br/> I want to throw this out for consideration.....<br/> <br/> EIANW is a game and thus only simulates history...<br/> <br/> With all due respect to the point of view of Hellfirejet, the effort to make the naval game more granular is a interesting idea _but_ IMHO a colossal waste of time witho...

If you had to pick the biggest drawback of this game?

Some of the people who post in the forums.....

<r> <br/> Marshall,<br/> <br/> You should check this out related to AI Empires In Arms historical NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS<br/> <br/> <URL url="http://grognard.com/variants/eianat.txt">http://grognard.com/variants/eianat.txt</URL><br/> <br/> and<br/> <br/> <URL url="http://home.earthlink.net/~toadkiller...

Doh!

Should have checked there first...thanks again

Is there a manual for the Editor or are we going to have to troll through the forums for that kind of data?

Thank you to pzgndr for your comments above.

Boy that map brings back good memories!
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

<t> No worries Marshall!<br/> &nbsp;<br/> Jimmer had a better response.....<br/> &nbsp;<br/> I am guilty of having played in the same group as Dancing Bear, so we almost always had the REQURIED "optional" rule&nbsp;(as stated by Jimmer)&nbsp;_and_ Nelson<br/> &nbsp;<br/> &nbs...

<t> Marshall,<br/> &nbsp;<br/> 1a) Removing two (2) fleets in the old game would eliminate the heavies in 2 of GB's 7 fleets - that is an almost potential&nbsp;29% of their heavies - a serious blow to the British "Wooden Wall" - and Nelson of course for the +1 roll modifers&nbsp;and PP b...

<t> <br/> I like the direction of Jimmers ideas...<br/> <br/> to them I add;<br/> <br/> 1) what if they could retreat to the nearest depot within their movement allowance; otherwise<br/> 2) I would reduce the listed FORAGE VALUE by (lets say) "-3" to a min of "0"<br/> <br/> Agree with the play testi...

<t> Ndrose, You point is very valid....and I agree with it.<br/> <br/> The points I was trying to make are;<br/> <br/> a) Without supply, armies of the period would not remain an army long and thus GAME capture...<br/> <br/> b) with Supply; <br/>          1) the Victor should choose the path along t...

<t> &nbsp;<br/> Marshall, why would that matter anymore?<br/> &nbsp;<br/> This is EIANW, not EIA or EIH.....<br/> &nbsp;<br/> If you ask players of the above (EIA/EIH), you will get too many points of view....nature of the game.....<br/> &nbsp;<br/> My comments above are my thoughts ...

Here here Tater!
&nbsp;
I agree that the "ship factor" makes more sense.......

<t> I am with Jimmer on this one...<br/> &nbsp;<br/> The word "retreat" suggests, that the loser should not gain an advantage by losing...<br/> &nbsp;<br/> Suggestions re: amphibious assault;<br/> &nbsp;<br/> A) No Supply Depot at SEA: Retreating Army is Captured<br/> B) Supply Depot at ...