Hi there, we have been playing EIANW with 7 EIA experts human players in the last month and we run into a series of serious rule implementation issues. I guess all of them can be solved without raising serious technical difficulties.
I am not sure if some of them are being addressed in the current patch, but I report them there for documentation:
1. Loaning corps
Currently corps with leaders cannot be loaned. It should be possible to loan them.
Furthermore political points for battles should be given/subtracted to all major powers participating with
corps, loaned or not, not only to the phasing major powers.
Empires in Arms is a game based on alliances, and given that there is no way we are going to see
combined movement in EIANW, full loan as above should be abilitated. Take the typical case of a Russian,
Austrian and Prussian coalition vs. France. Since in EIANW corps cannot supply on allied depots, the only viable
option for the Russian to invade, say, the north of France, is to loan his corps to the Prussian.
But by doing that, he will get no pp from victories, not a big incentive to him. Even worse, a Prussian-Russian
army will need a Russian leader, since 1805 Prussian leaders are simply awful. But Russia cannot loan corps with leaders. So either no good leader or no supply lines in Northern France...
As I said, coalitions are central in EIA, and we need better loan rules in EIANW to compensate for the
lack of combined movement
2. Fleets on Loan
Loaning fleets should be possible too. The reason why is as above: one needs coalition at sea to stand against GB.
3. AI run battles when only 1 corp is involved as defender.
This is turning out to be a big mistake, and an option should be introduced to disable this
when setting up a new game.
The problem is that sometimes 1 corps battle are extremely important and AI is to dumb to run them properly. In particular AI never tries to reinforce with nearby armies. In our game the entire French fleet was blockaded in Amsterdam, with a Prussian army nearby. The French, an experienced EIA player, left just a single corp under Davout in Amsterdam, counting on the protection given by the entire Grand Armee stationing one area away under Nappy. In EIA he could have reinforced Davout with 5/6 chances per combat turn. In EIANW, the AI running Davout corp did not call for reinforce.
Result: Amsterdam taken, entire French Navy lost and game partially ruined (mind, I am the British, but winning this
way is not very satisfactory).
4. Political points in naval battles.
EIANW fleets should be worth only 1/2 political point, not 1. There are indeed approximately
two times more fleets in EIANW that in EIA: EIA feelts were made of 30 factors each, EIANW one by 20 (heavy fleets)
or 10 (light ones). EIH fleets, finally, used to contain exactly 20 heavy ships and 10 light ones each.
1 pp per fleet is unbalancing.
5. Surrender bug
In pbem games no nation should be forced to surrender if gets his home capital occupied (I guess this is being addressed in the next patch)
6. Wind gauge in blockading boxes.
I have read around that wind gauge when trying to force a blockade is handled incorrectly. I hope you
are fixing this one :):)
7. Feudal corps forage (maybe solved).
I am not sure if this has been solved (our Turkish player is scarce on infos): Feudal corps should not forage the turn they are placed back on the map.
8. Supply chain problems
As GB, I am not able to place a depot in an allied (with access) port whose land area contains one of
my corps (yes, I have a fleet and a depot in London). In practice, I cannot establish
a supply chain over the channel and I cannot reinforce corps there.
I am not sure this is a real bug, since EIA rules are a bit obscure about placing depots:"7.2.2: Even if not itself a supply source or part of an overland supply chain, a new depot may be placed in an area containing an unblockaded friendly controlled port, provided there exists a friendly unblockaded sea supply source (see 7.4.3) to the port."
But we always interpreted the rules as "If I have access to an allied territory and my corps is in one of his ports, I can place a depot there" (and I can also place a depot in an enemy port I have conquered and garrisoned)
Could you consider implementing this interpretation, please?
Constantinople control over Dardanelles.
Fleets passage between Dardanelles and trade with Russian ports in the black sea should be authorized
by the Turk (or whoever controls Constantinople)
< Message edited by Ashtar -- 2/22/2008 8:39:49 PM >