I would definitely like to see this added. But all told, I would prefer more scenarios before the addition of rules like these.

Oh hellz yeah I am excited.

Considering that it is a computer game no one has paid a cent for, I wouldn't suggest worrying at all.

<t> Lets review how this forum works:<br/>
<br/>
1. The Developers say the game is almost ready.<br/>
<br/>
2. People become happy, say the wait was worth it.<br/>
<br/>
3. Developers say some problems have come up.<br/>
<br/>
4. People bitch and moan and make threads about how they have ...

Thanks. Keep it up. Really looking forward to it.

1792 - 1805 - 1813 sounds like a pretty good line up, IMHO.

The scenario I am dying for is the 1813 scenario from the EiA rulebook.

Good to know things are coming along.

Well, it was originally commissioned by Napoleon while he was actually reigning.

It looks like it will come out this year, so, lets all hope.
&nbsp;
As much as I wish this would have come out earlier, I am still really hyped up to play the game.

Quit hijacking my thread with your fucking&nbsp;pissing contests

Its a game. The purpose is to win. Players should not be hampered because actual historical people did things half-assed.

Well, geeze. Be a little melodramatic about it why don't you?

I don't get what you guys are complaining about. Everyone ganging up on England so he doesn't coast to victory makes sense.

France whipping everyone by setting up the AU/PR rotation is good strategy, and somewhat true to history.

Thank you for those. I haven't seen those before.

But, no, the articles I am talking about are two longish articles by a writer named Philip Hansen, one is about general EIA strategy, and the other is an article about specific strategy for each country.

<t> I am looking for online copies of the articles by Philip Hanson from the General on EIA.<br/>
<br/>
They are called "Guidelines for Emperors" or something, and they are medium length articles on EIA strategy. The reason I am asking is that they used to be online, and now the website that ...

This thread has really taken a turn for the ignorant and offensive.

<t> 1. The USA did not lose the War of 1812. The war ended Status Quo Antebellum. In other words, it was a draw.<br/>
<br/>
To call Vietnam a "loss" is overstating it. It was a strategic failure, but to call it a loss is overstating its importance in the long run. It was not really a lost war, but ...

I don't think anyone is saying Wellington WAS NOT&nbsp;a good general. I just think the truth is he was overrated, and nothing when compared with Napoleon.

Napoleon was an enormous micromanager, didn't hurt him any.