Battle System

[cdbeck]

I may get yelled out for being a newbie (that's ok, I probably deserve it), but I had a quick question. Having never played the board-game version of EiA, I wanted to know what the combat system was like. Is it a modified sort of Axis & Allies system with different attack and defense numbers for various units? Or is it much more complex with unit populations, tactical placements, seperate artillery fire, etc.? The literature available on the computer game "adaptation" (can't say port now can we) seems too sparse for me to tell (and the sole screenshot of armies show lots of vertical rectangles filled with pics and blurry numbers). So, what's up?

Son of Montfort

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

I may get yelled out for being a newbie (that's ok, I probably deserve it), but I had a quick question. Having never played the board-game version of EiA, I wanted to know what the combat system was like. Is it a modified sort of Axis & Allies system with different attack and defense numbers for various units? Or is it much more complex with unit populations, tactical placements, seperate artillery fire, etc.? The literature available on the computer game "adaptation" (can't say port now can we) seems too sparse for me to tell (and the sole screenshot of armies show lots of vertical rectangles filled with pics and blurry numbers). So, what's up?

Son of Montfort

Hi,

Did played the game a long long time ago and as far as I remember you had different type of units as infantry, artillery and cavalry (might seems obvious of course). Might even have been some countries with Guards units but not sure. Then you started a battle by contesting possession of an area belonging to another country. Then you have to choose between a tactic which in the game was choosing a card for the attacker and the defender then comparing the choices like Assault, Probe, Defense, attack, flanking or so then depending on the choices you were loosing points of morale. Depending on your country and your troops you had x points of morale at the start of the battle and the first one to reach zero morale looses the battle. Then you will have some pursuit depending on how many cavalry points you had. Of course the French having a higher morale had an advantage. This was a pretty basic system but the game was about diplomacy not fighting mainly so it worked well enough.

As said this was at least more than 10 years ago and based on my memory so might not be totaly accurate but you should get the idea.

Ch,

[ktotwf]

The system is extremely simple but also breathtaking in its beauty. It accurately represents the battles of the time with very few rules. It makes the game feel much more Napoleonic than, for example, Crown of Glory.

[rafaveterano]

It was a beatiful, but complex system, basically you used the number of your troops to see the damage that you give to the enemy but the battles were usually won on moral, so a much smaller side with higher moral could defeat a much bigger army and the reatreat give a huge amount of loses to the defeated army.
 
To start each side counted the total number of troops and average moral, then it had to choose a type of strategy, then each day had 3 throw of dices, en each of one there would be a loss of soldiers and on moral, whoever lost all the moral points (or all the soldiers) won the battle. At the end of the day (if the battle had not been decided yet) the battle could continue, but usually the losind side would reatreat.

[Regeurk]

ORIGINAL: veterano

It was a beatiful, but complex system, basically you used the number of your troops to see the damage that you give to the enemy but the battles were usually won on moral, so a much smaller side with higher moral could defeat a much bigger army and the reatreat give a huge amount of loses to the defeated army.

The thing that attracted me to EiA's battle system when I first encountered it a couple decades ago was, as veterano says above, that losses are taken based on the size of the opposing army. I had played countless Avalon Hill games where the combat system relied on a gross ratio of opposing forces -- 1-1, 3-2, 2-1, 3-1, etc. -- and a player would be looking for that one extra factor that might take a 1-1 battle to the 3-2 category, or something like that (for instance, if I had 29 factors, and you 20, it would be classed as a 1-1 batte; but if I could find just one more factor, and have 30, then the face of the entire battle changes when I jump up to 3-2 odds with the addition of a strength factor that amounts to only 2% of the total factors involved). And then losses sometimes bore no resemblance to the reality of the situation.

There are no "odds" in EiA -- in effect, every factor counts when losses against your opponent are figured. And, because of the morale component, as veteranoalso said, a smaller force with high morale can easily (and usually does) beat a much larger one with lower morale. However, the losses inflicted on the smaller force before the larger force breaks (due to the fact, as stated above, that losses to one force are taken as a percentage of the other), might be so large as to turn it into a pyrrhic victory, which often happens. What also happens frequently, which I find very historically satisfying, is that indecisive battles are quite possible, forcing a player to take a more strategic approach to a series of battles, or indeed a war, than in other games. When I discovered EiA, it immediately made those 1-1, 2-1 "ratio" games unacceptable to me, and games which I had previusly loved (War and Peace, 1776, Soldier King) were henceforth almost unplayable for me.

I find it a very balanced battle system -- where decisive battles are uncommon, if not rare (see the "favorite battles" thread nearby), but always possible; and players must be stratetigically wise to win the game. The winner may very well not be the person who won a majority of battles, but the one who maneuvered himself diplomatically and strategically with the greatest finesse. That's what I love about EiA; and as long as Matrix's computer version faithfully reproduces this, I will be happy.

Regeurk

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

I may get yelled out for being a newbie (that's ok, I probably deserve it), but I had a quick question. Having never played the board-game version of EiA, I wanted to know what the combat system was like. Is it a modified sort of Axis & Allies system with different attack and defense numbers for various units? Or is it much more complex with unit populations, tactical placements, seperate artillery fire, etc.? The literature available on the computer game "adaptation" (can't say port now can we) seems too sparse for me to tell (and the sole screenshot of armies show lots of vertical rectangles filled with pics and blurry numbers). So, what's up?

Son of Montfort

I think this question was more directed at are we going to see the old EiA system of strength, morale, chit picks and D6 results, or has this been overthrown for a more miniature based system. My understanding is that we are using the old EiA system although they may have updated it to the EiH system (just more options for form of attack/defense), but I am not a dev so maybe a tester or dev can give us the scoop!

[cdbeck]

Thanks for all the answers! The old system sounds very nice, and I like how important morale is (and the story of the smaller force with larger morale beating the larger force, but in turn being nearly decimated sent chills up my spine). Very interesting strategic components here. Lets hope is stays somewhat elegant, as in the old system. As funny as this sounds, I kinda don't want a miniature based system. Thats what Crown of Glory is for...

Son of Montfort

[Cheesehead]

How about the naval combat system? Can you re-create Trafalgar?

Thanks

John

[Russian Guard]

While I enjoy CoG very much and in fact find much of that game to feel more "Napoleonic" than EiA does, I agree that the detailed combat system for CoG doesn't feel very "period".

With the exception of the "monster stack" issue with EiA, the tension and drama with chit picks and die rolls was always an EiA heart-thumper [;)]

[Titi]

Hmmm Trafalgar.
Naval combat is not the best part of EiA. So you can fight Trafalgar, but won't probably feel the excitment of it, cause the battle take less than one minute to resolve and is mainly pure luck from the die roll.
There was an advanced naval table published later as an option changing the combat to have the same favor as the land one, but i dislike it cause each and every step is a bonus to the Brits.

By the way, the naval portion of EiA is the worst one due the lack of Fog of War and the huge moving ability of the ships. So the ships in Malta can react to ships just leaving Stockolm and fight it in the next month. [:@]