Soon the Sun of Austerlitz will shine

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

On publication, this game will be vilified, eviscerated, and fricasseed to an extent never before done to wildlife. Be ready. It won't be pretty.

I plan to buy and enjoy this game. I congratulate Marshall and all others involved in its development for picking up a failed project and bringing it to successful fruition. While you are basking in the life-destroying radiation of the "this ain't EiA," "This oughtta be B, not A, and should include C," and "It shouldda been this, not that" nuclear explosion that is about to ensue, I salute you.

Even worse than the immolation of your efforts is that Matrix will likely never again (after suffering through the last gasps of the WiF economic debacle) even consider "porting" a boardgame to computer.

*sigh*

I also plan to buy the game (I still play computer 3rd reich for memory's sake) and the pbem component of EiA will make it SO much more playable than 3R.

I'm also thankful that Matrix and Marshall have worked so long and hard on this.

I'm actually a little put disappointed with the beta-testers for not (apparently) noticing (or not pointing out) some rather large flaws that would (even with my limited programming experience) be relatively easy to adjust (for example, the brits not being able to intercept the neutral spanish fleet carrying an invading french army to London).

If not one of the beta testers actually know EiA, then it's not surprising that got overlooked. But to any player with even average EiA experience, that sticks out as a very large problem.

Small things like 'we can't have the kingdom of italy' are unfortunate for those who know and love the game, but not a big deal

changes that make a nation hugely harder to win with (without a corresponding adjustment in the VP-to-win total) are a big deal.

Careful with your speculations. We knew the score but there was only one man in charge of coding this and short of beating him to a pulp to get it and several hundred other things done, a lot was changed to bring it to where it is today.

Richard

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

On publication, this game will be vilified, eviscerated, and fricasseed to an extent never before done to wildlife. Be ready. It won't be pretty.

I plan to buy and enjoy this game. I congratulate Marshall and all others involved in its development for picking up a failed project and bringing it to successful fruition. While you are basking in the life-destroying radiation of the "this ain't EiA," "This oughtta be B, not A, and should include C," and "It shouldda been this, not that" nuclear explosion that is about to ensue, I salute you.

Even worse than the immolation of your efforts is that Matrix will likely never again (after suffering through the last gasps of the WiF economic debacle) even consider "porting" a boardgame to computer.

*sigh*

I also plan to buy the game (I still play computer 3rd reich for memory's sake) and the pbem component of EiA will make it SO much more playable than 3R.

I'm also thankful that Matrix and Marshall have worked so long and hard on this.

I'm actually a little put disappointed with the beta-testers for not (apparently) noticing (or not pointing out) some rather large flaws that would (even with my limited programming experience) be relatively easy to adjust (for example, the brits not being able to intercept the neutral spanish fleet carrying an invading french army to London).

If not one of the beta testers actually know EiA, then it's not surprising that got overlooked. But to any player with even average EiA experience, that sticks out as a very large problem.

Small things like 'we can't have the kingdom of italy' are unfortunate for those who know and love the game, but not a big deal

changes that make a nation hugely harder to win with (without a corresponding adjustment in the VP-to-win total) are a big deal.

Careful with your speculations. We knew the score but there was only one man in charge of coding this and short of beating him to a pulp to get it and several hundred other things done, a lot was changed to bring it to where it is today.

Richard

We all appreciate what Marshall has been able to do, and the fact that there are many subtleties to the game that are difficult to code. We're overjoyed to have the game at last (at all).

We also appreciate the way he has been so responsive to the requests of the community by putting in things like max tactical ratings and the new poly combo's that have been put in.

And yet, it is still my opinion that some items on the to-do list need to take higher priorities than others because they influence the game greatly.

Marshall (not being an EiA grognard) can't be expected to spot subtleties like that.

Since it has such a *massive* affect on the GB player (and since there is already a check-for-corps-onboard routine coded into the interception routines) the effect vs effort ratio of this *particular* instance was high enough that were I a beta tester I would have stressed the need for change very strongly immediately upon seeing it, and continued to stress it until it got addressed. I wish it had been, but it won't stop me from buying the game... : )

Other items (like the minors whose movement stays at 3 even though french) just have so much less of an effect that of course they can be left to later (we hope there will be a later)

If we weren't all so green-eyed jealous of the fact that the beta-testers were chosen instead of us, there would be more cheers for them, no doubt...

[demonterico]

I love Spain.  My 15mm Spanish army is my favorite, and oh that beautiful big navy. Second largest navy in the game.  Remember it was the British Navy that won the Napoleonic Wars.  (See quote below)  After Oct. 21, 1805 everything the French did was just an exercise in futility.  Throughout history gaining control of the sea has been a prerequisite to gaining the victory in war.  But the Spanish fleet does have an Achilles Heel.  Above Jamo262 said it was too hard to rebuild, but thats not quite right, its impossible to rebuild.
 
 

[JavaJoe]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

On publication, this game will be vilified, eviscerated, and fricasseed to an extent never before done to wildlife. Be ready. It won't be pretty.

I plan to buy and enjoy this game. I congratulate Marshall and all others involved in its development for picking up a failed project and bringing it to successful fruition. While you are basking in the life-destroying radiation of the "this ain't EiA," "This oughtta be B, not A, and should include C," and "It shouldda been this, not that" nuclear explosion that is about to ensue, I salute you.

Even worse than the immolation of your efforts is that Matrix will likely never again (after suffering through the last gasps of the WiF economic debacle) even consider "porting" a boardgame to computer.

*sigh*

I also plan to buy the game (I still play computer 3rd reich for memory's sake) and the pbem component of EiA will make it SO much more playable than 3R.

I'm also thankful that Matrix and Marshall have worked so long and hard on this.

I'm actually a little put disappointed with the beta-testers for not (apparently) noticing (or not pointing out) some rather large flaws that would (even with my limited programming experience) be relatively easy to adjust (for example, the brits not being able to intercept the neutral spanish fleet carrying an invading french army to London).

If not one of the beta testers actually know EiA, then it's not surprising that got overlooked. But to any player with even average EiA experience, that sticks out as a very large problem.

Small things like 'we can't have the kingdom of italy' are unfortunate for those who know and love the game, but not a big deal

changes that make a nation hugely harder to win with (without a corresponding adjustment in the VP-to-win total) are a big deal.

I am a beta tester and an avid EiA player. I've played this particular version of EiANW for quite some time....years? Played EiA for too many years.

Please don't speculate on what the beta testers "overlooked".[:-]

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: JavaJoe

I am a beta tester and an avid EiA player. I've played this particular version of EiANW for quite some time....years? Played EiA for too many years.

Please don't speculate on what the beta testers "overlooked".[:-]

Do you agree that fixing the attacking a neutral transporter should be fixed at the same time as allowing fleets to be loaned?

[Thresh]

Being a playtester for several other games, I will attest to one thing:

Playtesters are human, and make mistakes. They can and will miss things. It's part of the territory. Otherwise there would be no such thing as patches or second editions etc etc

That said, speculating on game imbalances before actually playing it is pretty....well, lame.

Thresh

That said,

ORIGINAL: JavaJoe

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

On publication, this game will be vilified, eviscerated, and fricasseed to an extent never before done to wildlife. Be ready. It won't be pretty.

I plan to buy and enjoy this game. I congratulate Marshall and all others involved in its development for picking up a failed project and bringing it to successful fruition. While you are basking in the life-destroying radiation of the "this ain't EiA," "This oughtta be B, not A, and should include C," and "It shouldda been this, not that" nuclear explosion that is about to ensue, I salute you.

Even worse than the immolation of your efforts is that Matrix will likely never again (after suffering through the last gasps of the WiF economic debacle) even consider "porting" a boardgame to computer.

*sigh*

I also plan to buy the game (I still play computer 3rd reich for memory's sake) and the pbem component of EiA will make it SO much more playable than 3R.

I'm also thankful that Matrix and Marshall have worked so long and hard on this.

I'm actually a little put disappointed with the beta-testers for not (apparently) noticing (or not pointing out) some rather large flaws that would (even with my limited programming experience) be relatively easy to adjust (for example, the brits not being able to intercept the neutral spanish fleet carrying an invading french army to London).

If not one of the beta testers actually know EiA, then it's not surprising that got overlooked. But to any player with even average EiA experience, that sticks out as a very large problem.

Small things like 'we can't have the kingdom of italy' are unfortunate for those who know and love the game, but not a big deal

changes that make a nation hugely harder to win with (without a corresponding adjustment in the VP-to-win total) are a big deal.

I am a beta tester and an avid EiA player. I've played this particular version of EiANW for quite some time....years? Played EiA for too many years.

Please don't speculate on what the beta testers "overlooked".[:-]

[Odysseus]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

ORIGINAL: Odysseus

I'm a big sucker for Russia. Always plays that nation if I can. Of course, I've never really played it that well or succesfully. In fact, I have some pretty spectacular failures behind me...But I don't care - I'm in this for the love of the game and the era more than for my ability to triumph...

LOL, Odysseus! That reminds me of playing the board game version of Diplomacy with all my friends. Whoever got Russia was always like "damn" because they knew they were going to lose, but it was going to take all night and be a long fight!

SoM

Well, as an example, I believe I might be the only player of Russia in EiA history that succeeded in being at war with ALL the other MPs AT ONCE! I'm particularly proud of that one, though I can't really take credit for it - the first DoW was from the player of Spain [X(]. He was a Swedish nationalist and declared before the game even had started that he'd automatically, on principle, DoW anyone who DoWed Sweden - regardless of what nation he played and regardless of the situation on the board. As Russia, I did, because, lo and behold, that's a pretty standard scenario. IIRC some months later, I had joined Austria, Prussia and England vs France and Turkey. They wooped us good. Austria and Prussia got conditional surrenders and where forced into war with Russia - not that they were unwilling after just having lost a war... And then England simply jumped on the bandwagon to get a piece of the cake.

*sigh* those were the days....[8D]

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Being a playtester for several other games, I will attest to one thing:

Playtesters are human, and make mistakes. They can and will miss things. It's part of the territory. Otherwise there would be no such thing as patches or second editions etc etc

That said, speculating on game imbalances before actually playing it is pretty....well, lame.

Thresh

Except for the fact that I *have* played the game, just not on the computer interface.
And *because* I have played the game, I Know that the french (or anyone else) getting a free ride to London is unbalancing.

I can understand this without having to actually see the gui and make the moves with my mouse -- the fact that i make them with my mouse or with a cardboard chit does not make it any more or less a very raw deal for Britain.

GB could try to stay at permanent war with FR/SP/RU/TU to avoid armies smiling and waving as they go by the british ships on neutral fleets... but that also upsets the balance.

Not to mention that any one of the above except for turkey could surrender to GB, then carry the french to London, and after the french force GB to surrender carry the russians (then au, pr...)to london (ad nausea). it will never end for GB since there will always be someone at enforced peace with him who can carry his enemies directly to london.

Hopefully, there will be a patch, but until then any game i play in will have to have a house rule about the fleet situation to give britain *any* chance of winning, because once GB starts winning, it's very easy for the rest of the world to force her into a series of surrenders, something that is much much harder to do in the original game.

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

Hopefully, there will be a patch, but until then any game i play in will have to have a house rule about the fleet situation to give britain *any* chance of winning, because once GB starts winning, it's very easy for the rest of the world to force her into a series of surrenders, something that is much much harder to do in the original game.

Actually, the way it was coded, the program would have booted any loaned corps off the island unless Britain had given the borrowing major power access (there is no forcible access in EiANW). That would mean that the borrower would need to con their ally (Britain) into believing that they needed access while at the same time that borrower was also allied to Britain’s enemy with full access to their territory as well (which Britain could clearly detect). So your house rule will have to come equipped with a few players less accustomed to the rules in order for you to come close to pulling the above scenario off (even the AI is not that dumb).

Anyway, we already have a fix in that will allow major powers to attack neutral or allied fleets transporting an enemy corps. It will be a deviation (not following EiA 6.3.1.2 to the letter) but players will be allowed to either intercept (if a standing order is given), or initiate an attack during their naval turn, if there is an enemy corps onboard.

Richard

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

Hopefully, there will be a patch, but until then any game i play in will have to have a house rule about the fleet situation to give britain *any* chance of winning, because once GB starts winning, it's very easy for the rest of the world to force her into a series of surrenders, something that is much much harder to do in the original game.

Actually, the way it was coded, the program would have booted any loaned corps off the island unless Britain had given the borrowing major power access (there is no forcible access in EiANW). That would mean that the borrower would need to con their ally (Britain) into believing that they needed access while at the same time that borrower was also allied to Britain’s enemy with full access to their territory as well (which Britain could clearly detect). So your house rule will have to come equipped with a few players less accustomed to the rules in order for you to come close to pulling the above scenario off (even the AI is not that dumb).

Anyway, we already have a fix in that will allow major powers to attack neutral or allied fleets transporting an enemy corps. It will be a deviation (not following EiA 6.3.1.2 to the letter) but players will be allowed to either intercept (if a standing order is given), or initiate an attack during their naval turn, if there is an enemy corps onboard.

Richard

Exellent (on the fleet patch issue). Thank you all very much.

On the corps comment, please let me check if you and I are talking about the same thing.

I am talking about SP (neutral) ships carrying FR (at war with GB) corps to London.
The corps are moving in the SP turn, but they are FR in identity, so are not forcibly accessing, but have access rights normally because they are at war with GB.

Are you saying they *still* would not be allowed to land? Interesting.

what you are saying seems to be in conflict with what previous posters have said (about how loaned corps work, though no one has explicitly talked about invasions)-

the borrowed corps (fr, for example) are at war with GB, and thus can attack GB troops - that has been explicitly stated previously.

Does the fact that they are moving in SP's turn really keep them limited to only moving into lands that *SP* can move into?

i.e. do they act half-french (who they can attack) and half-Spanish (where they can move)?

SO if FR/SP are allied, FR is at war with AU, SP is not ---
FR and SP want to combine move (so FR loans some corps to SP).
in the SP turn, those FR corps could attack AU troops that are in FR lands (since SP can move there)
but NOT attack Au troops in AU land (since SP has no access to Au land)?

Only if the above is true (which is an interesting twist from what i expected) or there is special coding for invasions would the fr be held back from a free ride to London.

If it is true, it is quirky (half sp/fr corps), but I'd much rather have quirky corps on loan than free-invasions-for-everyone.

cheers (and thank you, beta-testers for your patience with me, and for your hard work)
(lucky $%&*$#$%&*&^%$#s....) : )

p.s. how many hours now?

[Norden_slith]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

ORIGINAL: jnier

ORIGINAL: jamo262
Spain I'm not so sure about. Maybe a guerrilla war is fun but losing fleets is not. They are too hard to rebuild.

Spain is a blast! The trick is to use your fleet as lever, without actually ever committing it to battle. The threat alone, of all those Spanish ships, scares the crap out of both England and France.

I agree that your fleets are your best bargaining chip, but i differ in the use of it

The Brits are scared of your fleets, so the threat of allying with the FR is a valid one.

Don't imagine that the FR are scared of your fleets (their fleets are already pinned helplessly in port), and FR can trash your nation in a heart-beat. Threatening FR will get you laughed at

SP is an easy bag of p.p.s for france, never forget that.

Use the possibility of allying with FR and lending her your fleets as your bargaining chip to keep FR sweet (e.g. if you attack me, i won't lend you my fleets, but if you leave me alone then at the right time we can jump GB together...) and to keep GB off your back (attack my ships or portugal, and I am FR's ally against you)

"Laughed at"? Even as France, one should be more diplomatic then that. There is nothing to laugh about in this case. Sure, France can kick Spain around, but Spain has chosen side against you and removed the threat of her fleets from GB - that's bad news. So, first after all diplomatic overtures have failed YOU KICK HER BUTT ! [;)]

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

Are you saying they *still* would not be allowed to land? Interesting.

They would technically land, so that the program would know to trigger the boot, less they starve out at sea but that procedure will also be changing in the first post-release patch. You should not be allowed to disembark into territory without being granted access unless at war with the major power controlling the territory (same as if attempting access by land).

Does the fact that they are moving in SP's turn really keep them limited to only moving into lands that *SP* can move into?

i.e. do they act half-french (who they can attack) and half-Spanish (where they can move)?

SO if FR/SP are allied, FR is at war with AU, SP is not ---
FR and SP want to combine move (so FR loans some corps to SP).
in the SP turn, those FR corps could attack AU troops that are in FR lands (since SP can move there)
but NOT attack Au troops in AU land (since SP has no access to Au land)?

Correct.

Richard

[jjax]

Hey guys.
 
How long does it take to play through the grand campaign?

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

Hopefully, there will be a patch, but until then any game i play in will have to have a house rule about the fleet situation to give britain *any* chance of winning, because once GB starts winning, it's very easy for the rest of the world to force her into a series of surrenders, something that is much much harder to do in the original game.

Actually, the way it was coded, the program would have booted any loaned corps off the island unless Britain had given the borrowing major power access (there is no forcible access in EiANW). That would mean that the borrower would need to con their ally (Britain) into believing that they needed access while at the same time that borrower was also allied to Britain’s enemy with full access to their territory as well (which Britain could clearly detect). So your house rule will have to come equipped with a few players less accustomed to the rules in order for you to come close to pulling the above scenario off (even the AI is not that dumb).

Anyway, we already have a fix in that will allow major powers to attack neutral or allied fleets transporting an enemy corps. It will be a deviation (not following EiA 6.3.1.2 to the letter) but players will be allowed to either intercept (if a standing order is given), or initiate an attack during their naval turn, if there is an enemy corps onboard.

Richard

Well 1st my question that remains unanswered:
Will a patch be happening to allow fleets to be loaned? Yes or No. This is important since without it, Britain is completely safe in the game and cannot be invaded no matter how many enemies she has.

Now for my new question:
Are you going to be patching to fix the fact that a loaned corp cannot attack a nations that it is at war with (FR corps loaned to neutral SP not being able to enter AU when FR and AU at war for example)?

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: Murat

Well 1st my question that remains unanswered:
Will a patch be happening to allow fleets to be loaned? Yes or No. This is important since without it, Britain is completely safe in the game and cannot be invaded no matter how many enemies she has.

Punt to the programmer.

Now for my new question:
Are you going to be patching to fix the fact that a loaned corp cannot attack a nations that it is at war with (FR corps loaned to neutral SP not being able to enter AU when FR and AU at war for example)?

If Spain is also at war with Austria then they can move into Austria, however, if Spain is neutral in that war then no, Spain will not be able to use French forces against Austria in Austria.

Richard

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

If Spain is also at war with Austria then they can move into Austria, however, if Spain is neutral in that war then no, Spain will not be able to use French forces against Austria in Austria.

Richard

Ever? That's pretty limiting. You have to either allow corps to be loaned and fight like your nationality to represent combined move or you need to abandon the corp loaning all together in the patch, you cannot have 1 rule for land and 1 for naval.

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Monadman

If Spain is also at war with Austria then they can move into Austria, however, if Spain is neutral in that war then no, Spain will not be able to use French forces against Austria in Austria.

Richard

Ever? That's pretty limiting. You have to either allow corps to be loaned and fight like your nationality to represent combined move or you need to abandon the corp loaning all together in the patch, you cannot have 1 rule for land and 1 for naval.

“Have to”– no.

We have disallowed one ally (not a war) to use another ally’s forces to invade the enemy territory of that second ally under the combine movement rule. Declaring war is the only option in EiANW unless defending or attacking in an area where access allows the neutral major power to operate the loaned corps.

But here’s the kicker . . . while composing a test game for this specific issue (neutral major power ally controlling ally’s forces), I noticed that it was broken. Yes, that’s right – it no longer is allowing the borrower to defend or attack with the loaned corps in an area where access allows the neutral major power to operate. Note: You can still move and attack if both borrower and loaner are at war the other major power (simulating combined movement). We’ll get this one fixed as well and push something to you all ASAP.

Never a dull moment . . .

Richard

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Monadman

If Spain is also at war with Austria then they can move into Austria, however, if Spain is neutral in that war then no, Spain will not be able to use French forces against Austria in Austria.

Richard

Ever? That's pretty limiting. You have to either allow corps to be loaned and fight like your nationality to represent combined move or you need to abandon the corp loaning all together in the patch, you cannot have 1 rule for land and 1 for naval.

“Have to”– no.

We have disallowed one ally (not a war) to use another ally’s forces to invade the enemy territory of that second ally under the combine movement rule. Declaring war is the only option in EiANW unless defending or attacking in an area where access allows the neutral major power to operate the loaned corps.

But here’s the kicker . . . while composing a test game for this specific issue (neutral major power ally controlling ally’s forces), I noticed that it was broken. Yes, that’s right – it no longer is allowing the borrower to defend or attack with the loaned corps in an area where access allows the neutral major power to operate. Note: You can still move and attack if both borrower and loaner are at war the other major power (simulating combined movement). We’ll get this one fixed as well and push something to you all ASAP.

Never a dull moment . . .

Richard

Hey, since the loaned corps are acting half-half nationality wise,
If FR loans 2 corps to SP, and SP gets in a fight with AU with 4 SP corps and 2 FR corps
(FR and SP are allied, both are at war with AU - FR corps are less than 20 factors)

If SP loses the fight, does he lose 3 pps? Or does he lose 2 pp.s and france lose 1 (as in normal EiA)?

If he wins the fight (let's posit that there are 4 Au corps) does only SP gain +2 pp or do both SP and FR gain +2 pp (as in the original)?

Now that the loaned corps are acting partFRpartSP, many things get muddy again.

many thanks

(still waiting for it to show up in the store, rumors of vile heathen having copies already abound...)

[Thresh]

RUMINT is correct.

Just refresh your browser...

Todd

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

Hey, since the loaned corps are acting half-half nationality wise,
If FR loans 2 corps to SP, and SP gets in a fight with AU with 4 SP corps and 2 FR corps
(FR and SP are allied, both are at war with AU - FR corps are less than 20 factors)

If SP loses the fight, does he lose 3 pps? Or does he lose 2 pp.s and france lose 1 (as in normal EiA)?

Spain would lose the 3 PPs per EiANW deviation

If he wins the fight (let's posit that there are 4 Au corps) does only SP gain +2 pp or do both SP and FR gain +2 pp (as in the original)?

Spain gets it all per EiANW deviation

Richard