Stacking in Computer EiA

[Russian Guard]

Thanks Oldtimer, you expanded nicely, the point I made earlier.

Again, unless they have changed Corps size and configuration for this game from the board game, this will favor the French in any 1-on-1 battle.

Your point about the French being able to "double-turn" and smash smaller Allied stacks is also dead-on, and I worry about that, if the French still have the double-turn capacity mixed with maximum stack size limits.

I played the board game for many years (over 20), and with many different players. Like you, we found through experience that monster stacks - however unpleasant - were just about mandatory to fight France if she was at full-strength.

That's actually the reason I started this thread - I wanted to know if the computer version would successfully limit stack sizes without tilting the game in favor of France. Personally, I HATE monster stacks.

Oh and Carnifex - I think Grouchy's letter to napoleon would have read "Apologies, Sire, but the roads to your position are already filled with Ney's forces as he marches to your position - he will arrive, but logistics make it impossible for my Corps to make it in time."

See, it'a all in how you look at it (rationalize it) [;)]

[carnifex]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

Oh and Carnifex - I think Grouchy's letter to napoleon would have read "Apologies, Sire, but the roads to your position are already filled with Ney's forces as he marches to your position - he will arrive, but logistics make it impossible for my Corps to make it in time."

See, it'a all in how you look at it (rationalize it) [;)]

No, I'm pretty sure it will read I can't march my 12,000 men to help you because there is one man standing in the way. It's not Ney's forces, it's just his counter. Him and a couple of adjutants.

You know, the more I think about it, the more nonsense it seems. What, the devs couldn't find a way to display more than 15 counters in the available space? I mean that has to be it because it obviously can't be anything based on realism, since we're treating a cossack counter or whatever other POS 1k conglomeration of men as equal to a Corps of 15 thousand.

And of course this is going to favor the French. And it will also lead to silly debates between allies about the perfect 15 counter stack.

[iamspamus]

My experience was the opposite. Monster stacks by one side, forced monster stacks by the other. This is one of my problems with the game. On the other hand, arbitrary 15 unit (general / combat unit) stacking limits is a poor concept. It may prevent me from purchasing the game...

Jason

ORIGINAL: donkuchi

I remember playing EIA as a board game and the players that made the super stacks always seemed to lose because their corps would end up having to forage and they would lose many factors that way while their opponents would avoid combat and go around the super stack and occupy all of the provinces. They may win the battles but end up losing the war because all of their provinces were conquered.

[La Provence]

In accordance with the size of the area : A stacking limit is a nonsense !
So, an unlimited stacking will be suitable.
And it's stupid to count as a corps a lonely leader !!!
 
BUT
 
1- Because of the logistic difficulty of this period, the player must have forage penality :
- Limit to suply support of a Depot ; the others must forage with the penality due to the corps number.
- To avoid this, the player can create (if possible) more suply chain !
 
2- A penality must be applied to the movement point in regards with the leader strategic rating. Because it's more difficult to organize and command a big number of corps. (The same for the navy of course).
 
3- In acordance with my idea, a freikorps/cosak  in this case (in a big stacking) are assimilated to a corps. Because :
- if they are in this case, it is the player wish to put them under the command of an army leader !
- in a such area, it will be difficult for us to find logistic and supplies (like the others).
 
Conclusion :
All this rules limit the movement capacity of a big stack AND the cost of its supply AND the forage loses.
So, the big stacks have battle advantage BUT also logistic disadvantage.

[oldtimer]

La Provence the rules do have logistical penalties for large stacks.

1 - We always played with the optional rule that a depot could only supply 4 corp.

2 - For each corp in the area where you finish movement (enemy or friendly) you get a +1 modifier to the die roll to a maximum of +2, for each unused movement point you get a -1, but if you have 10 corp in the area and 2 MPs left then it would be +10 - 2 = +8 penalty but that is lowered to only +2. This die roll modifier is then applied to your die roll and compared to the lowest foraging value area you moved through (not counting your starting point).

You then roll for every corp that is not on depot supply so casualties can add up. Do it in Winter and add another +2 and make it a force march and add another +1 so potentially you can have a +5 die roll modifier.

In my opinion EiA was not designed to be a realistic war game but rather an enhanced diplomacy. When I played this game the "lively" interactions between players because one felt betrayed by the other whether true or not or the plotting of schemes to gang up on another power. The attempt to get something while giving little. All that is what made EiA sometimes known as "Arguments in Arms" a great game. The battles, logistics, movement, etc that is just a means in the game for a person to enforce his/her desires for their country.

The EiH rules were an attempt to make things more "realistic" for the cardboard pieces, force more realistic alliances with minors, etc. I never cared for that because it took away from the diplomacy in an attempt to "balance" other things.

This isn't your typical war game like Panzer Leader, 1776, Midway, etc. This is a war game about the interaction of people. I think the email aspect is going to make it that much more fun. Now you can't stand next to the person and explain what you meant. Now you have to communicate VERY clearly to the other person in explaining your "deals" and "desires." With the Internet now one has to deal truly with different cultures and language barriers in writing.

I use to run a PBEM version of this game. As the person that ran it you couldn't actually play it, but you got to watch how people schemed and plotted. This game will allow everyone to play because the computer will run all the mechanics of the game.

I can't wait for this game to come out. I just don't want a game that is focused on making everything balanced and realistic, but rather sticks as close as possible to the EiA rules and lets the real game of diplomacy come forth.

I have to go, but I could say more on this and probably better just a little rushed putting these thoughts down.

[Frank McNally]

Is the +2 cap on forage owing to other corps applied after you subtract the unused MP or is it applied first such that in your example, you would have +2 for othr corps -2 for unused MP = 0 modifier?

[malcolm_mccallum]

Am I misremembering this game? When I walk forward with my one super stack and attack a moderate sized stack, am I not also forced to engage all adjacent stacks as they rush to join the battle?

One stack can be bypassed. Supporting wings of an army was better in that it gave more flexibility, breadth, and security. It also didn't leave all your eggs in one basket and was easier on foraging. Multiple moderate stacks on the attck could better influence retreat directions.

[Montbrun]

"7.4 THE SUPPLY STEP
Only Corps and besieged forces must be supplied. Leaders and unbesieged Cossacks, Freikorps, Basibozuks, Guerrillas and garrisons do not need supply.
7.4.1 FORAGING
“Foraging” represents living off the country. When a Corps ceases movement it may elect (or be forced) to “forage” rather than use depot supply. If it has force marched, or is four or more areas from the nearest depot in a friendly valid supply chain, or not eligible to use invasion supply, or no money is available for depot supply then it must forage for supply.
7.4.1.1 Foraging Procedure
A D6 is rolled for each foraging Corps as it completes movement (but after resolving any 7.3.13 procedures that may be caused by its movement). This D6 roll is modified as below, if any modifiers apply. The modified D6 result is than compared with the forage value of the area with the lowest forage value of all the areas passed through or stopped in, not counting the area in which the Corps started (unless the Corps did not move and remained in that area), during its Land Movement Step. If the modified D6 result is equal to or less than this forage value, there is no effect. For each modified D6 point above the forage value, the Corps must lose one army factor.
7.4.1 Foraging
Land Area
Base = Lowest forage value of terrain passed through

Modifiers
-1 inside home nation province
-1 per unused movement point
+1 if force marched
+1 for each additional Corps
in final forage location (Max -2)
+2 during Winter months
+2 if plunder marker on area
Besieged City
Base = Number of spires of city
Modifiers
+1 for 4-9 factors in city
+2 for 10+ factors in city
-2 for Galley supply 6.2.2.4

7.4.1.2 Foraging Modifiers
When the D6 is rolled for a foraging Corps, the following cumulative modifiers may apply:
7.4.1.2.1 Other Corps in the Area
For each other unbesieged Corps in the area it currently occupies, whether that Major Power’s or not (including friendly and enemy Corps which have, or have not, already moved during this step), “+1” is added to the result of the D6, up to a maximum of “+2”. NOTE: This does not include Corps that leave the area as a result of the 7.3.13 procedures .
7.4.1.2.2 Unused Movement Points
For each movement point the Corps did not use, one is subtracted from the D6. EXCEPTION: The D6 is not modified due to unused movement points if the Corps is besieging or planning to besiege enemy forces in the area.
7.4.1.2.3 Force Marching
If the Corps force marched, “+1” is added to the D6 roll.
7.4.1.2.4 Winter
If it is winter, “+2” is added to the D6 roll unless the Corps is in the “Mediterranean zone” (9.2.3).
7.4.1.2.5 Plunder
If the area where the city is located has a plunder marker on it (7.7.5), “+2” is added to the D6 roll.
7.4.1.2.6 In Home Nation Provinces
If the Corps did not move into an area outside the Major Power’s home nation provinces, or home minor country or Kingdom provinces, for a minor country or Kingdom Corps this turn, and is not now in such an area, “-l” is subtracted from the D6 roll .
7.4.1.3 Foraging Losses
The factor or factors removed for foraging losses may be any in the Corps of the controlling Major Power’s choice, with these restrictions:
• Any factors that were part of the Corps during its movement are eligible to be used for forage losses. If possible, forage losses must come out of the factors actually in the Corps when movement is completed.
• Corps counters may be removed as a result of forage losses only if all factors that were part of the Corps during its movement are lost to foraging. If only one factor remains after foraging losses are removed, that factor must be in the Corps and the Corps counter must be left on the map .
If all Corps counters in an area are removed due to foraging losses, any leaders with the removed Corps are immediately removed from the map. They may be returned to the map during any later Army Reinforcement Step.
7.4.2 REGULAR (DEPOT) SUPPLY
After the movement and foraging of Corps is complete, any Corps or besieged port garrisons which did not forage must now pay for supply. Depot supply, while costing money prevents the chance of army factors being lost. Paying for depot supply is as follows:
7.4.2.1 Paying for Depot Supply
Any Corps in a depot area or that can trace an unblocked route to a depot may use depot supply. Besieged port city garrisons (regardless of size) may also use depot supply. The costs for all Corps are summed and up, that amount then being deducted from that Major Power’s current treasury. A Major Power may not use depot supply for a Corps if it doesn’t have enough money to pay the cost and such Corps must instead forage for supply.
7.4.2.1.1 Corps Depot Supply
A Corps in the same area as a depot being part of a valid supply chain costs $.5 to supply. Other Corps up to three unblocked areas away from a depot pay the number of areas they are away from a depot in a valid supply chain in money points .
7.4. 2 Depot Supply
Corps or besieged port city garrisons may use depot supply by paying the following per corps and/or garrison


$0.5 in depot area
$1.0 in adjacent area
$2.0 two unblocked area away
$3.0 three unblocked areas away
All costs are doubled during winter
7.4.2.1.1.1 Limited Supply per Depot (OPTIONAL)
A depot may supply a maximum of four Corps .
7.4.2.1.2 Besieged Port Garrison Depot Supply
Besieged port city garrisons using sea supply through a depot in the port city cost $.5 per 10 garrison factors to supply.
7.4.2.1.3 Winter Depot Supply Costs
All supply costs are doubled in winter for Corps or garrisons not within the Mediterranean zone (9.2.3).
7.4.2.2 Allied Depot Supply
Major Powers may have their forces live off the depots and/or supply chains of their Allies or Kingdoms, but those Allies or Kingdoms must pay the costs involved. Naturally, permission is required for this, with supply being paid for by the Major Power or Kingdom owning the depot at the time it is required."

From EiH 4.0 - there are some changes up to 5.2.

[oldtimer]

Brad Hunter thanks for typing out the Foraging information. I didn't have time for that.

[oldtimer]

ORIGINAL: Frank McNally

Is the +2 cap on forage owing to other corps applied after you subtract the unused MP or is it applied first such that in your example, you would have +2 for othr corps -2 for unused MP = 0 modifier?

We applied it per my example in the group I played. That was one of the reasons I referred to it as "Arguments in Arms." Sometimes the rules were a little ambiguous to their meaning and based on a situation people would argue like in a courtroom to win their point. Once we had a consensus though we typically kept it that way unless something in an errata came out to change it.

[oldtimer]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Am I misremembering this game? When I walk forward with my one super stack and attack a moderate sized stack, am I not also forced to engage all adjacent stacks as they rush to join the battle?

No adjacent stacks do not HAVE to join the battle you ay have them "attempt" to join the battle (die role vs the tactical rating of the stack trying to join). If they join they come in at the morale level of the stack already involved in the battle (so if the Guard were adjacent and then joined the battle it has no impact on the morale).

[Monadman]

oldtimer wrote:
I use to run a PBEM version of this game. . . . I just don't want a game that is focused on making everything balanced and realistic, but rather sticks as close as possible to the EiA rules and lets the real game of diplomacy come forth.

That pretty much summarizes what moved me to get involved with this project.

Anyway . . .

EiANW efficiently uses the “standing orders” format, that many old paper pushing email gamers would be familiar with, to drive its PBEM games and then takes it a large step further by adding a ‘pre-action reaction” format. If you’re real big on thinking and planning then this format will keep you motivated in working out the possibilities beforehand while at the same time preventing a PBEM game from getting bogged down waiting for individual responses (as can happen with The Call To Allies Step).

Btw, I’m not sure what can be done about the 15-counter stack limitation (which I’m not for either) but I will add this; most of the deviations (workarounds) found in EiANW were done due to programming restraints. There were countless times that Marshall said it could not be done only to change his thinking after engaging in discussion concerning how it could be addressed. In most cases the problem was either fixed in accordance with EiA or EiH rules, but in some incidences the time needed to properly address the issue would deeply tax his resources (which was limited due to other priorities) so the issue was either dropped or placed on the backburner. From what I’ve been told, there was once a stack limitation of “10” per area section when the project began but the beta testers back then wanted more and so the restriction was lifted to 15.

Richard

[oldtimer]

Monadman,

First I am in 100% agreement as to what attracted me to EiA in the first place. If I had the time (and it is to late in the project now) I would have loved to beta test this product.

If the program can be changed from 10 to 15 then it sounds like it is just an array (okay maybe more then that), but it does tell me that it can increase. If that is so, then wouldn't it be possible to say look at Russia (21 Corp, 3 Fleets, 6 Cossacks, +1 Depot) for a maximum of 31 counters in a single space, make it 33 to account for troops stacked on a depot and the garrison. I believe that is the MOST corp any one major power can put in a single stack. If you are using an array of some sort I don't see what the limitation is. On the screen itself you don't need to show all the corp there, perhaps a symbol on the corp indicating more then one present or something. Just a thought I would also consider this a future enhancement since I wouldn't want something like this to delay the release of the game.

My biggest concern as far as the game play is the double move both France and England have. That is a huge diplomatic stick for the French on land and the English at sea. Nothing like a diplomatic deal going south between the French and another land based power and then that power who thought their troops were safe suddenly finds the French that were once far away attacking them with Napoleon and Murat.

The game aspect does play an important role for the diplomatic side of things. I remember once playing the French and convincing everyone how bad the Russians were and somehow conviced Austria and Prussia to go after Russia to stop his aggressive stance. Meahwhile I took 95% of the minor countries between my self and my neighbors. To this day I still wonder how I did that. It didn't hurt that the Russia player was a little arrogant.

[iamspamus]

Hey Oldtimer,

We have done this and also the even stiffer penalty of 4 corps per depot chain. This made you pay for your gd, art, maybe cav corps and forage the rest. Obviously not a big deal in friendly territory, since you could have a new "chain" per city, but try advancing into enemy territory! We always liked this addition to the rules.

Jason

ORIGINAL: oldtimer

La Provence the rules do have logistical penalties for large stacks.

1 - We always played with the optional rule that a depot could only supply 4 corp.

[iamspamus]

MM,

In the board game, the adjacent stacks could attempt to reinforce. The number was anywhere from a 1 -intrinsic corps strategic modifier and some generals to a 5 for Nap and Welly. This was modified, I think, by chit picks and maybe stack size. It's been a while. Not sure how this will work with a stack size limit.

I think that EiA is at a scale that the spread out coprs moving parallel along separate roads is simulated within a space. If it was hex based, like La Grande Guerre, then the stacks would be significantly smaller and ther would bem omre hitting of smaller units with reinforcements being more important. Smaller scale. Not necessarily better.

Hope that this helps and is correct [:D]. (It is as I remember it.)

Jason

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Am I misremembering this game? When I walk forward with my one super stack and attack a moderate sized stack, am I not also forced to engage all adjacent stacks as they rush to join the battle?

One stack can be bypassed. Supporting wings of an army was better in that it gave more flexibility, breadth, and security. It also didn't leave all your eggs in one basket and was easier on foraging. Multiple moderate stacks on the attck could better influence retreat directions.

[Monadman]

<oldtimer > wrote:
Just a thought I would also consider this a future enhancement since I wouldn't want something like this to delay the release of the game.

Yes, the problem is manpower hours to code it in so it is considered an enhancement – at the moment. J

Richard

[qgaliana]

I can see a 15 counter limit as being a pain in the ass. I remember 12 corps concentrating for battle fairly often - it was a typical&nbsp;lineup in&nbsp;Germany.&nbsp;Given they may come in from several areas with their own leaders you can&nbsp;quickly run over the limit.
&nbsp;
And it sounds like it may kill reinforcement - which was a nice way to avoid some of the overstacking costs.
&nbsp;
Definitely will alter how many people play, but I'm guessing it's a display problem, not a storage problem. Would it be fair to assume there are difficulties conveying more than 15 counters on the screen?
&nbsp;

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: oldtimer

If that is so, then wouldn't it be possible to say look at Russia (21 Corp, 3 Fleets, 6 Cossacks, +1 Depot) for a maximum of 31 counters in a single space, make it 33 to account for troops stacked on a depot and the garrison.

We’re talking about doing just that (lifting the stack limitation to 30 per area section). Essentially adding a second page to the Selected Unit Info box. There will need to be other adjustments (such as the battle screen) but when completed, this should give the alliances a chance against France. Btw, your example included fleets; a fleet in port does not count towards the land stack limitation in the city or city area.

Richard

[La Provence]

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

7.4.2.1.1.1 Limited Supply per Depot (OPTIONAL)
A depot may supply a maximum of four Corps .

Sorry, I have not this optionnal rule in my (old) Game Rules ! [&:]
I supose that I'm behind about some other updated points [:@]

[timewalker03]

mine also does not have the 4 corps supply limit. Here is what My rules has for corps supply:

7.4.2 REGULAR (DEPOT) SUPPLY: After the movement and foraging of corps is complete, any corps which did not forage must now pay for supply. Depot supply, while costing money prevents army factors being lost. Paying for depot supply is as follows:
7.4.2.1 PAYING FOR DEPOT SUPPLY: Any corps in a depot area or which can trace an unblocked route to a depot may use depot supply. Besieged port city garrisons (regardless of size) may also use depot supply (see 7.4.3 and 7.4.4). The costs for all corps and separate garrisons are summed and any fraction rounded up, that amount then being deducted from that major power's current monetary total. A major power may not use depot supply for a corps if it doesn't have enough money to pay the cost and such corps must instead forage for supply.
7.4.2.1.1 Corps Depot Supply: A corps in the same area as a depot being part of a valid supply chain costs half a money point to supply. Other corps up to 3 unblocked areas away from a depot pay the number of areas they are away from a depot in a valid supply chain in money points. For example, a corps 3 areas away pays 3 money points to get supply. The route through intervening areas traced from a corps to a depot may not be blocked by forces (same rules as for blocking a supply chain (see 7.2.3.2.1).
7.4.2.1.2 Besieged Port Garrison Depot Supply: Besieged port city garrisons using sea supply through a depot in the port city cost half a money point per garrison to supply. Besieged port city garrisons using invasion supply cost one money point per garrison to supply as they are in an adjacent area.
7.4.2.1.3 Winter Depot Supply Cost Increases: All costs are doubled in winter for corps or garrisons within the winter zone (see 9.0).


There is more, but this addresses the issue. Mine is a scanned copy in word format so it is an exact replica of the rulebook and not a typed in version