Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Alternate Dominant Powers Omission

 
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 >> Alternate Dominant Powers Omission Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/17/2008 10:48:10 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Gents: This ommision is a big one that would really add a great deal to the game if it could be reincorporated as an optional rule. Use of this rule invigorates diplomacy exponentially, as individual countries have diametrically opposite goals that follow historical examples. Makes things a whole lot more interesting. I would heartily encourage the incorporation of this optional rule at the soonest opportunity. Further, if it is adopted, I think it would be particularly vibrant if Matrix could offer it as an adoptable option to already established games.


Best
Mardonius

11.8 ALTERNATE DOMINANT POWERS: In EMPIRES IN ARMS, as with the historical events portrayed, France and Great Britain have obvious and constant qualitative advantages over the other five major powers and, although anyone can still win, they are the ‘dominant’ powers in the game and the centers of diplomatic activity. For example, if Prussia does very well early in a campaign game, it is still the rather puny Prussia of the Napoleonic period in terms of army factor morale, with the addition of some minor country corps for help. It is certainly not the dangerous Prussia of Frederick the Great less than 50 years earlier or the dominant Prussia (the basis of modern Germany) of 50 years later and will have trouble maintaining any early gains. Every one of the major powers in the game has the capability to become a dominant European power and, during the previous 200 years or during the next century, every one of them was or would be a dominant power. This option allows players, as the rulers of their respective major powers to alter the historical balance.

11.8.1 ACHIEVING OR LOSING DOMINANT POWER STATUS: In order for Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain or Turkey to become a dominant power, they must reach the New Political Combination Step of the Economic Phase at peace with all other major powers and in control of certain territories. In order for France or Great Britain or any other power that earlier achieved dominant status to lose their dominant status, they must reach the New Political Combinations Step of an Economic Phase at peace with all other major powers and not in control of the territories necessary to maintain their dominant power status. A France or Great Britain that earlier lost dominant power status may regain dominant power status if the reach the New Political Combinations Step at peace with all other major powers and in control of the territories needed to avoid the loss of dominant power status. Any changes in dominant power status must be announced in the New Political Combinations Step.

11.8.2 EFFECTS OF ACHIEVING OR LOSING DOMINANT POWER STATUS:
11.8.2.1 MORALE: If Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain, or Turkey become dominant powers, the morale value of the dominant power’s regular infantry is increased by ‘+1.0’ and, for Spanish and Turkish regular cavalry, morale is also increased by ‘+1.0’ (sic) Turkish dominant power feudal infantry and feudal cavalry have the morale increased by ‘+0.5.’ If France or Great Britain lose their dominant status, the morale of the diminished status major power’s regular infantry is reduced by ‘-1.0’.

11.8.2.2 CHANGED NAVAL ADVANTAGES: For Great Britain, the loss of dominant status also means their fleets lose their ‘+1’ die roll modifier in naval combats and they must always take the first sequence in a Naval Phase. If Austria and/or Prussia become dominant powers their fleets lose the ‘-1’ die roll modifier in naval combats.

11.8.2.3 CHANGED LAND PHASE SEQUENCE: If Austria, Prussia, Spain and/or Turkey becomes a dominant power, France no longer gets to chose its spot in the sequence but must always take the first sequence in the Land Phase. If two or more of Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain or Turkey become a dominant power, while France is not a dominant power, France must always take the first sequence in the Land Phase. If only one of Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain or Turkey is a dominant power while France is not a dominant power, France takes the major power’s usual step while the dominant power may announce when it will take its sequence, the same as France usually does.

11.8.2.4 INCOME CHANGES: For Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain or Turkey, their total major power income is automatically increased by 10 money points on the Money and Manpower Collection Steps of Every Economic Phase while a dominant power. For France and Great Britain, their total major power income is automatically reduced by 10 money points on the Money and Manpower Collection Steps of Every Economic Phase while not a dominant power.

11.8.2.5. LEADER IMPROVEMENTS: If Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain or Turkey become a dominant power, the controlling player may select one leader and consider that, for that one leader, there is an increase in the strategic, tactical, and tactical maximum rating numbers of ‘+1.” EXCEPTION: No leader’s ratings may be considered to be increased to exceed ‘5-5-6’.

11.8.2.6 PROVINCE CHANGES: At the moment a major power becomes a dominant power, all ceded provinces of other major powers that it controls become unceded provinces of the new dominant power’s home nation. Any ceded provinces acquired later remain ceded provinces.

11.8.3. CONTROLLED TERRITORY REQUIRED TO GAIN DOMINANT STATUS:
The following territories must be controlled by the given major power in order to achieve dominant status.
11.8.3.1 AUSTRIA: Must control all home nation provinces plus any 5 of the following 7 territories: the Bosnia province, the Confederation of the Rhine (even if reduced after creation – if not using option 11.5, Austria must control at least 5 out of Baden, Bavaria, Hanover, Hesse, Saxony, or Wurttemburg, which count together as one territory), the Kingdom of Italy (even if reduced after creation – if not using option 11.2, Austria must control Lombardy, Papacy and Venetia which count together as one territory), the Piedmont Minor Country, the Serbia province, the Silesia province, and the Switzerland minor country.
11.8.3.2 PRUSSIA: Must control all home nation provinces plus any 4 of the following 6 territories: the Confederation of the Rhine (even if reduced after creation – if not using option 11.5, Austria must control at least 5 out of Baden, Bavaria, Hanover, Hesse, Saxony, or Wurttemburg, which count together as one territory), the Denmark minor country (with or without Norway), the Lorrain Province, the Palatinate minor country, the Moravia province and Poland (must be created).

11.8.3.3 RUSSIA: Must control all home nation provinces plus any 6 of the following 7 territories: Armenia province, Bessarabia province, East Galicia Province, Moldavia province, Poland (must be created), the minor country of Sweden (must include Finland), and West Galicia.

11.8.3.4 SPAIN: Must control all home nation provinces plus all 5 of the following territories: the minor country of Gibralter (sic), the Kingdom of Italy (even if reduced after creation – if not using option 11.2, Austria must control Lombardy, Papacy and Venetia which count together as one territory), the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (both Naples and Sicily) the minor country of Morocco, and the minor country of Portugal.

11.8.3.5 TURKEY: Must control all home nation provinces plus any 5 of the following 6 territories: the Crimea province, the Georgia province, the Military Border province, the Ottoman empire (even if reduced after creation – of not using option 11.6, Turkey must control five out of Algeria, Cyrenica, Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Tripolitania or Tunisia, which count together as one territory), the Podolia province and the Transylvania province.

11.8.4 CONTROLLED TERRITORY LOSSES REQUIRED TO LOSE DOMINANT STATUS: France and Great Britain start as dominant powers and, to lose dominant status, must lose control of the following territories:

11.8.4.1 FRANCE: Must lose control of any 6 of the following 7 territories: the Flanders minor country, the Holland minor country, the Lombardy minor country, the Lorraine Province, the Palatinate minor country, the Piedmont minor country and the Switzerland minor country.

11.8.4.2 GREAT BRITAIN: Must lose control of any 6 of the following 7 territories: the minor country Gibralter (sic), the Hanover Minor country (already lost at the start of every campaign game), the Ireland province, the Malta minor country, the Portugal minor country (neutral and not controlled by Great Britain in Campaign games starting in 1805), the Scotland province and the Wales province.










_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
Post #: 1
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/18/2008 3:56:02 AM   
Ralegh


Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline
Ya, well, me too.
(and I want alternate victory conditions from EIH; other kingdoms; and a few other things.)

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 2
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/18/2008 3:29:09 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
Yeah, the fact of Austria having the Tyrol corps, has little meaning while no kingdom of Bavaria. France would more often go for a richer province in peace conditions, when no Italy to form.

Not sure whats needed for Kingdom of Italy, since the province Ilyria is missing.

Regards
Bresh 

< Message edited by bresh -- 3/18/2008 5:20:26 PM >

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 3
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/18/2008 6:16:15 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline
I'm unsure about this. I can't recall playing a game when someone has gained or lost dominant status and such a change would hugely unbalance the game.

The rules as written have too many 'gamey' aspects. e.g You can only become dominant when you are at peace with everyone. So if someone reaches the required criteria someone else (often GB) will declare war and stay at war just to stop them becoming dominant.

I like the *concept* of these rules but feel they need reworking to do the idea justice.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 4
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/18/2008 6:49:37 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I'm unsure about this. I can't recall playing a game when someone has gained or lost dominant status and such a change would hugely unbalance the game.

The rules as written have too many 'gamey' aspects. e.g You can only become dominant when you are at peace with everyone. So if someone reaches the required criteria someone else (often GB) will declare war and stay at war just to stop them becoming dominant.

I like the *concept* of these rules but feel they need reworking to do the idea justice.

Dominant power rules are NOT intended to actually be exercised, IMO. I think their purpose is to keep player goals in line with historical goals. Russia has no business chasing after Africa, but, if she got sufficiently large, she might just do that. But, with dominance rules in place, she would only do so if she already had the locations that were in her dominance conditions, or drove towards those.

As the game is, it's just another "Risk": A game where no territory is better for you than any other territory.

I would like to see dominant power conditions in force just because it gives me a goal.

Also, dominance conditions would probably make the AIs play their parts a LOT better, all by itself. They wouldn't get distracted by peripheral issues that shouldn't really matter to them.

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 3/19/2008 5:45:13 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 DCWhitworth)
Post #: 5
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/18/2008 7:06:58 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Dominant power rules are NOT intended to actually be exercised, IMO. I think their purpose is to keep player goals in line with historical goals. Russia has no business chasing after Africa, but, if she got sufficiently large, she might just do that. But, with dominance rules in place, she would only do so if she already had the locations that were in her dominance conditions, or drove towards those.

As the game is, it's just another "Risk": A game where is no territory is better than any other territory.

I would like to see dominant power conditions in force just because it gives me a goal.

Also, dominance conditions would probably make the AIs play their parts a LOT better, all by itself. They wouldn't get distracted by peripheral issues that shouldn't really matter to them.


I would say this could well have the reverse effect. If I have a choice between provinces do I go for the one that contributes towards dominance or not, knowing that if I get close everyone will gang up on me to pull me down. I've had players exclaim during peace negotiations "No I don't want that, it will put me too close to dominant Status"

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 6
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/18/2008 9:10:01 PM   
ktotwf

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
I would definitely like to see this added. But all told, I would prefer more scenarios before the addition of rules like these.

(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 7
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/18/2008 11:59:29 PM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline
I think this would be outstanding with longer scenarios, but more importantly, dropping dominance may be more important.  I think it is an added dimension and would force france and england to work with people instead of just beating them down with little risk to themselves.  The morale issue is key in dominance, and that should be affected by the tides of the times...If it was instilled into the game engine, then longer games (30 years) would enable realistic change in dominance! and risk.

(in reply to ktotwf)
Post #: 8
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/19/2008 2:26:03 AM   
ChristianKnudsen


Posts: 12
Joined: 9/24/2005
Status: offline
I know that I greatly enjoyed playing with these when I played the board game last. It has the effect of forcing Britian to really pay attention to siding with the weak against the strong.

In addition, it really makes playing the smaller nations much more fun - Now Turkey really wants Transylvania in that surrender, and has to dicker a lot with the French to get it. Adds a lot to the game.

BTW, we never had anyone come near getting dominant status, but it made for some great negotiating.

(in reply to dodod)
Post #: 9
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 3/19/2008 5:51:49 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
I would say this could well have the reverse effect. If I have a choice between provinces do I go for the one that contributes towards dominance or not, knowing that if I get close everyone will gang up on me to pull me down. I've had players exclaim during peace negotiations "No I don't want that, it will put me too close to dominant Status"

That's a possibility. But, try stopping Turkey some time, with the assumption that Austria and Russia are together against him, and they get routed by Turkey. This happened to me, and I got four territories of the five I needed (plus the Ottoman empire, which I did NOT yet have) all in one surrender phase. Great Britian was chuckling to herself somewhat, because this became a threat to France! But, in the end, even Britain decided to attack me (and lose the war, by the way). Unfortunately, she didn't have enough of Africa to tip the scales for me. Bummer. Even Austria and Russia came back again, but couldn't force an unconditional, and so did not get to take territory back. The game ended with Turkey non-dominant, but it was close for a good five years.

It's a lot more interesting using dominant power rules if you are also playing with the hard civil disorder rule. In that kind of situation, players sometimes don't have the option of ganging up on the guy, because they've been clobbered. Without hard civil disorder rules, it's difficult to force an unconditional.

_____________________________

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 DCWhitworth)
Post #: 10
Dominant Prussia - 3/19/2008 11:56:27 PM   
Dave_T

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/9/2008
From: Sunny Rowner
Status: offline
"All" Prussia needs is Denmark, Palatinate, Lorraine & Poland. A good 1st war against France & a little help from GB & it's not difficult. This makes the worst country in the game (I never play Prussia) a tad meaty.

_____________________________

The time has come for you to choose, you'd better get it right. Berlin girls with sharp white teeth are waiting in the night.

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 11
RE: Dominant Prussia - 3/20/2008 4:26:55 AM   
Thresh

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline
Prussia needs Moravia as well. 

And theres no Lorraine province currently, unless I am reading the map wrong...

Todd

(in reply to Dave_T)
Post #: 12
RE: Dominant Prussia - 3/21/2008 12:30:29 AM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3867
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Moravia and/or creating the CoR can be used in place of the others listed. As long as you have 4 of 6.

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 13
RE: Dominant Prussia - 3/21/2008 2:09:29 AM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
I reckon it (the Lorraine Province of the old paper map) would be Alsace on the PC version.

Semper Fi
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 14
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 2:59:09 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Marshall:

Any updates on the feasibility of the alternate dominant powers come version 1.05 or so?

best
Mardonius



_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 15
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 3:35:31 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Can you believe it Mardonius, I (EIA Purist that I am) 110% agree with the additional of this option to the EIANW...

I always found that this added to EIA, and increased the Political aspect greatly.


(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 16
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 3:42:08 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Hello Mssr Ares Mares/Ram of Mars:

Well, the above is typed verbatim from the old EiA scripture.

And don't tell anyone, I am somewhat of a doctrinist too... not as hidebound as some... but you have to start somewhere... I just get a little uneasy by some ahistorical limitations or allowances.

Where the heck are the US Marines anyway? Where is the "Shores of Tripoli" option? Let's get crack'in.

best
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 17
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 3:43:09 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
I personally don't see this as being anything but EiA, since these "optional" rules were included in the rulebook by the game makers. I guess when I say EiA I really mean non-EiH.

Although I have never seen any gain or lose dominant status during a game since everyone always agreed that doing so when highly unbalance the game and agreed to pretty much do anything to stop it, within reason, I don't have a problem with any optional rules being implemented.

I would even prefer that the "original" optional rules be implemented before the vast majority of EiH optional rules.

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 18
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 4:05:01 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Mardonius,

Yes, I love EIA scripture  

I will always tend to support ideas that a) increase the interaction between players  b) require more then just fighting battles  c) keeps the balance of play

IMHO, part of any good wargame is that the rules and game system gives the ability to allow any of the players to WIN the game.

My personal objection to some proposed options are that they would upset established play balance, or have not been GAME tested and thus I use the adjective CHROME. Pretty but serves no functional purpose.

Regards

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 19
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 4:15:39 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Mssr AresMars:

Excellent points and most legitimate criticism.

Play balance must be maintained. And that balance can only be guessed at without running a sample series of games which would take years... unless perhaps we could do so automatically.... Maybe there is an immediate use for the AI!

I guess I enjoy the luxury of playing the game as a historical recreation of diplomacy and warfare and am less concerned with winning per se (as in VP totals) as I am in advancing the stature of the country I am playing.

But in any event, one could adjust the VP by an approximate amount depending on the house/optional rules adopted and, if dealing with a mature set of players -- yes... I have found a few -- one could ajust them as one went along...

Ah, to have a scenario editor!

best
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 20
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 6:24:30 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Mardonius,

Yes, I love EIA scripture  

I will always tend to support ideas that a) increase the interaction between players  b) require more then just fighting battles  c) keeps the balance of play

IMHO, part of any good wargame is that the rules and game system gives the ability to allow any of the players to WIN the game.

My personal objection to some proposed options are that they would upset established play balance, or have not been GAME tested and thus I use the adjective CHROME. Pretty but serves no functional purpose.

Regards


That is always my main concern for adding anything is how the balance might be changed??? It is tough to see this far out in some options. I haven't wlays made the right decision here and have had to double back a few times. I guess you could call me a flip-flopper :-)






_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 21
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 7:06:19 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3867
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I like the idea as well. However, like Neverman, I haven't seen a dominant status change. So it's not particularly practical except against the AI, which is a good enough reason I guess. I'm rambling now.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 22
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 7:23:33 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: London, UK
Status: offline
I have seen the Turk get dominant status after beating living daylights out of me (a French-eviscerated Austria) and then having the UK declare peace for some benighted reason. So it does happen, though in this case through human error.

More realistically, I would consider having the rule that a power be at peace be replaced with a rule that says "must occupy these conditions/territories for six months".* Then this Dominant Status is attainable and can not be sabatoged by pure gamesmanship by someone DoWing just to stop the dominance.

*All credit and future royalties for this sound idea are attributable to DC Whitworth Enterprises, LLC All Rights Reserved, 2008.

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 23
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 8:01:44 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Mardonius
I have seen the Turk get dominant status after beating living daylights out of me (a French-eviscerated Austria) and then having the UK declare peace for some benighted reason.  So it does happen, though in this case through human error.
More realistically, I would consider having the rule that a power be at peace be replaced with a rule that says "must occupy these conditions/territories for six months".*   Then this Dominant Status is attainable and can not be sabatoged by pure gamesmanship by someone DoWing just to stop the dominance.
*All credit and future royalties for this sound idea are attributable to DC Whitworth Enterprises, LLC All Rights Reserved, 2008.


Once again, I also agree and support this idea suggestion.

Everytime someone got the requirements, GB always declared WAR and that was it.....

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 24
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/1/2008 8:51:10 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
But, wouldn't it be fun to be able to tell your grandkids that you had all of the things necessary to become dominant, and the only thing that stopped you was the world ganging up on you? There's a certain amount of pride one can take in getting even close. I mean, even Prussia, with her meager conditions needed, still has a really tough time doing it (mostly because of the animal to her West).

I know when I think back on the games I played, the one I remember the most was playing Turkey and needing only one of two things to become dominant. Even though, yes, they ganged up on me, yes, I still won the game, the thing I remember most is "almost making dominant power status".

I think, though, that the restriction on not being at war needs to be lifted. That's a historical artifact: Napoleon "became dominant" as a result of the 1802 treaty. But, realistically, France was already dominant at that time. It just took 200 years and a game to recognize it. :)

_____________________________

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 AresMars)
Post #: 25
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/2/2008 5:46:47 PM   
StCyr

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline
Intresting to read that the game balance might be touched. What game balance ? the ai is still braindead, there is no concept for the ai run nations - of course Mardonius is right when he asks to include Alternate Dominant Powers.

(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 26
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/3/2008 7:58:10 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
Alternante power this is one idea i support 100%. Just to repeat myself, seems someone thinks im beeing harsh on Mardonius when i dont like his ideas :)

Since to me this is EIA, it was even included as option in the standard rulebook.

And this is one of the features in my opion has a higher priority, than the non-standard options. 

This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.

Some gameplaying concerns, like Russia short 1 capital.

We also still have a hurdle, about the problems about kingdoms/Ottoman Empire about adding provinces after creation.

As it is atm, you cant add, and if you loose a province you can only conquere it back to your MP, not to your "kingdom".

Oh, and from what i heard, the ai still needs work.

Kind Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 8/3/2008 8:07:31 PM >

(in reply to StCyr)
Post #: 27
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/5/2008 3:47:43 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1250
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.


This issue actually isn't in Mantis but probably should be. There's a special surrender term (unconditional only) that has to be applied to Austria to make the CoR possible but it appears to have been missed. I'll get my rule book out tonight and go looking.

I'm glad this thread has popped up again because although the other issues in this thread are mostly already in Mantis (e.g. issues 93, 94, 95) there are some that should be added.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 28
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/5/2008 3:53:29 AM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.


This issue actually isn't in Mantis but probably should be. There's a special surrender term (unconditional only) that has to be applied to Austria to make the CoR possible but it appears to have been missed. I'll get my rule book out tonight and go looking.

I'm glad this thread has popped up again because although the other issues in this thread are mostly already in Mantis (e.g. issues 93, 94, 95) there are some that should be added.


C.8 and C.9. One of them disbands the Holy Roman Empire. The other puts it back into power again.


_____________________________

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 #: 29
RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/5/2008 5:42:58 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh
This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.


This issue actually isn't in Mantis but probably should be. There's a special surrender term (unconditional only) that has to be applied to Austria to make the CoR possible but it appears to have been missed. I'll get my rule book out tonight and go looking.

I'm glad this thread has popped up again because although the other issues in this thread are mostly already in Mantis (e.g. issues 93, 94, 95) there are some that should be added.



This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Alternate Dominant Powers Omission Page: [1] 2   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

0.195