Scenarios

[Windfire]

The 1788 campaign from EiH would be interesting.

[iamspamus]

Don't know about that, as it's beyond my scope, but I do know that when we played EIA, one variant was a "personal" leader. Basically, he could roll from 1-5 for each skill and a 6 on the 4th roll was a cav leader. Trick was he was a "D" leader and could only be used if you showed up that day!!! I remember capturing a British 555* (cav) leader. It was just fun. Sigh

Jason

ORIGINAL: La Provence

Is it possible to create personalized scenarios ?
To simulate particular situation.......
.....what if ?  ..........

If it'll be possible, all the scenario will be available !

[j-s]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hello all:

Realizing that version 1.00 will be an EiA / EiH3.0 blend, what do you guys think about a EiA classic scenario with the same map AND counters as the good old AH Bookcase game itself?

What other scnearios would you guys like to see?

Thank you

Yes, please Marshall [&o]

That's what I'm missing: Just a classic grand scenario with the original AH map, rules and counters. And all AH basic rules with errata and optional rules as a option. I don't need any more scenarios or "updated map" or more shiptypes. Just basic EIA with PBEM option and AI. And just that with all it's problems. I'm ready to pay extra for this!

More scenarios (from AH Bookcase) can be added later as updates. If we want add extra scenarios from General (like revolutionary wars 1792), then add that revolutionary wars scenario and a bossibility to play from 1792 to 1815.

That's my opinion (and my game group opinion). We are waiting and we like to see game soon...

Thank you!

[delatbabel]

My 2c.

Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

[iamspamus]

I think that it added complexity, yes, but it also fixed some issues, such as GB going to N AF for manpower and other things. Also, many people like "chrome" in games...

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

My 2c.

Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

[YohanTM2]

Umm, GB got a huge porportion of it manpower from NA, Aus, India right up until WWII so why is this not historical?

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

I think that it added complexity, yes, but it also fixed some issues, such as GB going to N AF for manpower and other things. Also, many people like "chrome" in games...

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

My 2c.

Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

[Paper Tiger]

Well in 1792 and throughout the napoleonic era GB did not have the manpower in india to ship it back to europe, although Sepoy troops were used in the attacks on Manila and in Southern Africa. Equally Australia had to few people to contribute any manpower and Africa was a very minor part of the available mmanpower. In fact it would have been more accurate to include in the British manpower small amounts from every nation which is trading with GB and from the west indies and the USA up until the revolution. A bonus for every war which takes place on the continent may also be justified. This would simulate the tendency of the British navy at the time to take seamen from any nation. Perhaps add population based on 1/10th of foreign trade.

[iamspamus]

Hey,

N AF is north Africa. They got ZERO manpower from there, though in many games they use them solely for manpower. This is our issue. With game mechanics they can control N Africa and draw all it's manpower from there.

I also disagree with GB getting alot of manpower from North America, Australia, or India in Europe in the NAPOLEONIC AGE. There were several units that were "American" (ie. from the "colonies" probably including Canada), but not many. None from Aus or India, though Welly did get his training there.

The majority of non-Brit contributions to the GB army came from Scotland and Ireland.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Yohan

Umm, GB got a huge porportion of it manpower from NA, Aus, India right up until WWII so why is this not historical?

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

I think that it added complexity, yes, but it also fixed some issues, such as GB going to N AF for manpower and other things. Also, many people like "chrome" in games...

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

My 2c.

Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

[Paper Tiger]

Don't focus so much on units as in infantry and cavalry, GB also has ships and a lot of the sailors and marines were from many other countries. 5% of the sailors in Nelosons fleet were "blacks" equally Portugese, Spanish, and even French sailors were used aboard British ships. Remember that it was the Navy which was the premier service for GB, not the Army.
 

[Mardonius]

True, but North Africans were not to be found in the rolls of the British (or any other European) Navy due to cultural differences, which, I believe, is Iamspamus' point.

[La Provence]

British navy forced captured sailors to serve in it's fleet.
For exemple, during napoleonic wars, the equivalent of 3 vessel crew were american ! It's no negligible !
 
These men caused some revolt, mutiny.
Of course, they were severely quelled.

[iamspamus]

Correct, Mardonius. There were SOME others in GB navy, but NO "known" North Africans in their. (Though there could be a few.) The issue is a game issue, that has come up in just about every game I've played of EIA/EIH over 20 years (not consistant play...). The point is that it is AHISTORICAL for the Brits to monopolize North Africa for manpower. Not only that it is a game IMBALANCE that is open to abuse. So, there is usually a house rule on this. That was all that I was saying. I just wanted to make Marshall Ellis and other Game Designers aware of it.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

True, but North Africans were not to be found in the rolls of the British (or any other European) Navy due to cultural differences, which, I believe, is Iamspamus' point.

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Don't focus so much on units as in infantry and cavalry, GB also has ships and a lot of the sailors and marines were from many other countries. 5% of the sailors in Nelosons fleet were "blacks" equally Portugese, Spanish, and even French sailors were used aboard British ships. Remember that it was the Navy which was the premier service for GB, not the Army.

[YohanTM2]

Never played a house rule on NA. GB is not over-balanced in this game

[Paper Tiger]

I agree very few North Africans were employed in the British forces, although I would hazard a guess that some were used in the navy as Morocco and Algeria both had a long history of good seamanship.
On the other hand of course there is no game mechanic to represent the small numbers of people from many nations who did end up in British forces due to trade and migration, also after 1807 when Britain abolished the slave trade numbers of Black Africans were liberated from slave ships by the British and some of these along with the liberated slaves from the USA who escaped to Canada and GB also helped to swell the manpower available to the British. 5% of Nelsons navy were black, that equates to 6 SOL in 1805.

[Paper Tiger]

One other point, historically GB did not invade and conquer North Africa and as a result we do not know what would have happened with North African troops in the British army, what I would suggest is that elsewhere where GB did conquer/ally and then employ local forces these troops were well trained. In India the british widely employed sepoy troops and some at least of these forces were of high enough quality to be used in foreign expeditions as previously mentioned. In Portugal where GB allied to the Portugese a EiA game rule already exists to improve native portugese morale after 1 year of control by GB, representing the improved equipment and training. I would suggest that a similar situation should be considered for North Africa, increase the base morale to 1.5 for infantry and 2.5 for Cavalry immediately to represent improved equipment and add a further +1.0 after 12 months. Only allow the manpower to be used in the original free state corps as a "Sepoy" corps and halve the maximum infantry and cavalry size in the corps. A typical N African Corps would then end up with morale 2.5 for Infantry and 3.5 for Cavalry once GB had been in control for long enough to train the troops.
I would of course suggest that this be regarded as a later patch option, even if considered workable.

[Murat]

Portuguese were European, not viewed as secondary citizens. Even Indians were not viewed as citizens of the Empire, just the best of the colonial peoples. I always felt that NA represented, for whomever controlled them, a source of cannon fodder. If you do not like Britain getting NA manpower, do something about it - this game is as much about diplomacy as it is about combat. As for increased training benefits, only the Egyptians were ever seen as remotely civilized (i.e.- worthy of training) so I would not add new rules for the British improving NA morale, a stronger case can be made for the French improving conquered morale since the Grand Army that marched on Moscow wasn't very French at all.

[Hoche]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hello all:

Realizing that version 1.00 will be an EiA / EiH3.0 blend, what do you guys think about a EiA classic scenario with the same map AND counters as the good old AH Bookcase game itself?

What other scnearios would you guys like to see?

Thank you

That would be great. I also would like to see a 1792 campaign.

[Camile Desmoulins]

Hello:
 
I like the original Eia classic scenario. I like teh great campaign scenario, the 1812 & 1813 scenarios are too much definited to some players. I like very much the French revolution scenario, the 1756 (Frederick the Great) and 1740 (very interesting, with the Emperor election as main leit motiv. Any of these scenarios are very good
 
Camille

[timewalker03]

Manpower issues are evened out by having the limited GB corps and 80 factors in the standing army Max. If you were to create Militia with the manpower its still a basic nonfactor because of the morale decline the Militia would have on the main corps. If France is in a bad position then I can see GB having success with North Africa, but if France is strong then GB must intercede in the land war as much as possible which ties up fleets dealing with troop transport. In the 50 or so games I played using the original AH EIA rules Africa was an issue maybe twice. The greater issues of imbalance came with having Austria and Prussia Allied when historically they hated each other and in the game are at a negative with each other. Heck the crossing arrows between Denmark and sweden have cause more game imbalance giving France the shot at sweden by land. But I believe each group of players have different experiences. Even though the original game had flaws it was still fun to play and a lot less taxing than EiH. We made changes to rules at times using the General Mags and like some of the rule variants, but not all. We all have our own experiences and views of the game. I would just like to see a release of something that closely resembles the original AH game and add the rest of the stuff in later. IMO

[yammahoper]

I recall a game were as GB I conquered most of North Africa.  I tried to span out my conquest so I would gain pp, but with the Fr and Tu contesting every war, that never really got me ahead.  Additionally, I ended up in two wars with the Tu, both won, though the second at a great cost of factors from a fight over Egypt (I won all three fights, but I ran with about 11 factors left out of over 50 starting factors).  When that war ended, I had North Africa up to Egypt, but I wasn't scoring enough points to win.  I realized that Fr was more than happy to keep me in the med and he would fund the Tu forever if that kept me off the continent, and that to win, I was going to have focus less on Norht Africa and more on beating down Fr.
 
Yes, I loved having spare infantry scattered across the map and all that man power.   Once dropped a 30 ship purchase in one eco phase.  However, I believe my "North Arica Strategy" cost me the game, even when in the game GB had a buffed economy, full navy and strong army, it was needed fighting Fr, not preventing the Tu from gaining the Ottoman Empire.
 
yamma