Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Kingdoms

 
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] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Kingdoms Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Kingdoms - 1/1/2008 7:57:55 AM   
Grapeshot Bob


Posts: 642
Joined: 12/16/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Could someone please give me a brief outline of the benefits/downsides of making a kingdom?


Thanks,

GSB

P.S. Happy New Year!

< Message edited by Grapeshot Bob -- 1/1/2008 8:17:46 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Kingdoms - 1/1/2008 9:46:42 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
Drawback

You lose income

Advantage

You get political points for creating them.

The income of the kingdom is double the printed value and it includes territories that have no corp so you can fill the kingdoms corps much faster than with free states.

Have not tested this but i think also its possible that if you lose a component of a kingdom that have a corp, that corp is still concidered part of the army of the kingdom - but as i said havent had the opportunity to test it yet.

Also for turkey creating OE there is additional bonuses like increased morale and tribute.

Poland can only be conquered as a unit and is then disolved.

< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/1/2008 10:05:45 AM >

(in reply to Grapeshot Bob)
Post #: 2
RE: Kingdoms - 1/3/2008 7:32:14 PM   
Grapeshot Bob


Posts: 642
Joined: 12/16/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Thank you.


GSB

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 3
RE: Kingdoms - 1/3/2008 10:00:26 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

You only lose income from any conquered minors you include in the kingdom. Free states included weren't giving you money to begin with. All corps available for all minors included in the kingdom can be built using the aggregate doubled money and manpower.


(in reply to Grapeshot Bob)
Post #: 4
RE: Kingdoms - 1/3/2008 10:49:58 PM   
Grapeshot Bob


Posts: 642
Joined: 12/16/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
This is very helpful. Many thanks.


GSB

< Message edited by Grapeshot Bob -- 1/3/2008 10:50:31 PM >

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 5
RE: Kingdoms - 1/3/2008 11:13:45 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
I use a mental equation to try to figure out whether making a kingdom (or, a free state) is worth it. I'm using the term "Free State" (FS) below, but it mostly applies to kingdoms, too. I ignore the political points, but I probably shouldn't. It's just that in such a long game, 2 PP isn't really all that much.

Anyhow, you have to compare the money and manpower you would get against what the FS would get. For instance, if the country is a 4/2 ($4 money, 2 manpower), then I would be giving up "1 troop and $1" per quarter. The FS will get 2 Troops and $2. However, they will have to spend $1 of the $2, to pay for the corps counter.

HOWEVER, that corps counter is also a benefit that one receives for making a free state gets: I now have one more corps counter to play with.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks. Many of the FSs don't have corps counters. In those cases, a benefit to being a FS is that it can't be lost to the instability/fiasco zones as easily. But, I can't think of any others. So, rule of thumb: Never create a FS that doesn't have a corps counter, unless instability is a potential issue.

Even for those minors who DO have corps counters, there are other drawbacks:

1)  The corps counters are generally smaller than home nations ones are. This means that a "slot" is taken up in a leaders limit count of corps counters. Generally, this means one will field a smaller army if one includes FSs. But, that's not always the case. Algeria is the same size as Austrian corps (except 4 cav instead of a 4 infantry). Etc.

2)  FSs can have lower morale than major powers' factors. (Huge exception: Poland). This can tend to lower the overall morale rating of one's army. However, this can be mitigated against by having the FS corps be the ones to perform "dirty work", and let the major's own corps fight battles. By "dirty work", I mean cleaning out enemy depots, besieging a city that isn't time-critical to capture, guarding friendly depots, etc.

Then, one must evaluate against ones own nation. France doesn't really like having those 2 morale guys dragging down his army's morale. On the other hand, Turkey thinks of some minors as "elite forces".

Also, Turkey looks at many FSs as having bigger corps than it generally has (Turkey only has 3 corps with > 10 factors allowed. So, adding Egypt's two 20-factor corps is a HUGE change in army size. Plus, it wasn't paying for itself anyhow (remember the equation: 3 troops are generated for Turkey by Egypt, but at a net COST of $6!). Turkey is better off with Egypt as a FS, but building only 4 factors a turn.

On the other hand, GB has to do some serious evaluating before she turns Egypt into a FS. Yes, it's a cost drain, but GB has more money than she knows what to do with. Which is better: Having 2 more 20-factor corps with 4 built-in cav, but at only 2.8 morale? Or, an extra 3 actual British troops per turn? Tough to say.

Each nation has a different practice (as will each player, and it's partly dependent upon your situation on the map), but the basics stay the same: Each minor conquered delivers x troops per turn, plus (or minus) some dollar figure. Then, one must ask, "Which is better?"

One nice thing about this game is that you can downgrade FSs to conquered status. One must be careful, lest one lost it to instability, but Turkey should consider dropping Imetria down to conquered after the first war with Russia is complete (or, after that section of the map has had all of the Russian squatters destroyed).

_____________________________

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 Grapeshot Bob)
Post #: 6
RE: Kingdoms - 1/3/2008 11:45:27 PM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
Freestate or not is a good question, many times it as Jimmer says depends on Your power. In this implementation for instance Russia have no cav in there main corps (which i think they should have in there I, II and III corp) this makes it very interesting for Russia to create Sweden for example as a free state with 10 INF 2 CAV with the same morale as Russian troops and they are also bigger than the majority of the russian corps. Saxony and Hesse is other good corps Poland is elite but hard to make without having a go at prussia wich probably isnt advicable as long as France is not crushed.

Holland, Sweden, Denmark Venetia and Portugal also has Fleets wich is another major reason to make them for certain nations.

In general and besides the corps mentioned above it´s usually best to wait with making freestates until you built out most of your corps this way you can field a bigger army and you can use the minors corps to guard ur rear, defend depots against cav/freicorps or to capture areas. And in my oppinion Turkey, Russia and to some extent Spain and England should be more inclined to create freestates than prussia austria and france. England for instance has a very small army and really good morale they can afford to mix in a minor corp or two and still be ahead in morale against most opponents (this ofc after they have filled there own corps) this would be even more true if the brittish training optional rule was in effect wich i dont think it is atm.

Another reason to make freestates is if you are high in political status and have enforced peace with all/most of your enemies especially if its late in the game. This way by releasing freestates and together with a bit of political manipulation you can stay dominant and gather alot of extra VP over time and it can be what wins you the game.



< Message edited by zaquex -- 1/3/2008 11:58:42 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 7
RE: Kingdoms - 1/4/2008 12:02:26 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
I don't think you can make a free state of a minor unless it has a counter. They can be included in kingdoms though.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 8
RE: Kingdoms - 1/4/2008 12:09:05 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

I don't think you can make a free state of a minor unless it has a counter. They can be included in kingdoms though.


That is correct, and its not very common that you can keep a freestate without corp that you get control of unless ur supporting or are already at war with the attacker.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 9
RE: Kingdoms - 1/4/2008 12:10:08 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

You can't in the boardgame but you can in EiANW. It's a deviation.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 10
RE: Kingdoms - 1/4/2008 12:11:43 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
mmm, ok thats new to me, there isnt much reason do it, but thank you for the information

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 11
RE: Kingdoms - 1/4/2008 12:15:03 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
Might be noted that if you conquer a minor with its fleet intact, it'll get the fleet back along with any surviving ships when you free it.  So if you're planning to make use of the fleet, consider removing any blockade in the naval phase before you march into the garrison and force the minor's fleet to evacuate.  Conversely, if you have a free state minor that's about to fall into enemy hands, and it has a fleet you don't want to see again... act accordingly.

Also, remember to release any remaining prisoners back to the minor once you've FS'd it.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 12
RE: Kingdoms - 1/4/2008 12:27:43 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

mmm, ok thats new to me, there isnt much reason do it, but thank you for the information


It's not that you do it so much as it occurs when war is declared on you and you have a minor ally. The ally gets called and becomes a minor free state of yours....whether it has corps or not.

That's the only way I get minor free states without corps, and I generally convert them pretty quickly to conquered minors.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 13
RE: Kingdoms - 1/4/2008 1:34:18 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
ok :-)

Well that was my experience too

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 14
RE: Kingdoms - 1/9/2008 6:11:50 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
The question for me on Kingdoms and important FS is "Can I keep it?" So, as RU, I may be able to make Poland, but can I build it up enough to hold it?

Except for maybe some of the central german states, I usually go with FS (of countries with corps markers). Hey, even if you add a few guys to the coutnry, you get a maintenance-free corps. In the case of Egypt, Sweden or some of the countries with fleets, they are monsters that can add ALOT to your forcepool.

Just my $.02.

(I just got the computer game and am working through the mechanics of doing what I want with the system. Yeah.)

Jason


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I use a mental equation to try to figure out whether making a kingdom (or, a free state) is worth it. I'm using the term "Free State" (FS) below, but it mostly applies to kingdoms, too. I ignore the political points, but I probably shouldn't. It's just that in such a long game, 2 PP isn't really all that much.

Anyhow, you have to compare the money and manpower you would get against what the FS would get. For instance, if the country is a 4/2 ($4 money, 2 manpower), then I would be giving up "1 troop and $1" per quarter. The FS will get 2 Troops and $2. However, they will have to spend $1 of the $2, to pay for the corps counter.

HOWEVER, that corps counter is also a benefit that one receives for making a free state gets: I now have one more corps counter to play with.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks. Many of the FSs don't have corps counters. In those cases, a benefit to being a FS is that it can't be lost to the instability/fiasco zones as easily. But, I can't think of any others. So, rule of thumb: Never create a FS that doesn't have a corps counter, unless instability is a potential issue.

Even for those minors who DO have corps counters, there are other drawbacks:

1)  The corps counters are generally smaller than home nations ones are. This means that a "slot" is taken up in a leaders limit count of corps counters. Generally, this means one will field a smaller army if one includes FSs. But, that's not always the case. Algeria is the same size as Austrian corps (except 4 cav instead of a 4 infantry). Etc.

2)  FSs can have lower morale than major powers' factors. (Huge exception: Poland). This can tend to lower the overall morale rating of one's army. However, this can be mitigated against by having the FS corps be the ones to perform "dirty work", and let the major's own corps fight battles. By "dirty work", I mean cleaning out enemy depots, besieging a city that isn't time-critical to capture, guarding friendly depots, etc.

Then, one must evaluate against ones own nation. France doesn't really like having those 2 morale guys dragging down his army's morale. On the other hand, Turkey thinks of some minors as "elite forces".

Also, Turkey looks at many FSs as having bigger corps than it generally has (Turkey only has 3 corps with > 10 factors allowed. So, adding Egypt's two 20-factor corps is a HUGE change in army size. Plus, it wasn't paying for itself anyhow (remember the equation: 3 troops are generated for Turkey by Egypt, but at a net COST of $6!). Turkey is better off with Egypt as a FS, but building only 4 factors a turn.

On the other hand, GB has to do some serious evaluating before she turns Egypt into a FS. Yes, it's a cost drain, but GB has more money than she knows what to do with. Which is better: Having 2 more 20-factor corps with 4 built-in cav, but at only 2.8 morale? Or, an extra 3 actual British troops per turn? Tough to say.

Each nation has a different practice (as will each player, and it's partly dependent upon your situation on the map), but the basics stay the same: Each minor conquered delivers x troops per turn, plus (or minus) some dollar figure. Then, one must ask, "Which is better?"

One nice thing about this game is that you can downgrade FSs to conquered status. One must be careful, lest one lost it to instability, but Turkey should consider dropping Imetria down to conquered after the first war with Russia is complete (or, after that section of the map has had all of the Russian squatters destroyed).


(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 15
RE: Kingdoms - 1/12/2008 3:55:51 AM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline
any way to know if restarts would be required for patches that put in new kingdoms?
I know this will be done in the future, but just asking.

(in reply to Grapeshot Bob)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Kingdoms Page: [1]
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

0.129