No Death by Calendar! Help!

[barbarossa2]

I don't know about the other players out there, but would it be too difficult to give us the option to extend the game past 1815? And allow players to end it at any point the group agreed (by say, pressing an "end game now" button)?

I have always hated the "death by calendar" way of ending games.

What brought the napoleonic era to a close was a series of historical events. Namely, the defeat and exile of Napoleon. Not the fact that Europe turned the calendar one day and saw it was 1816!

By allowing players to agree when the game should end (giving them the option to run to, say 1821 or so), this would allow any number of home cooked rules to be used to determine when to end one of Europe's greatest conflagrations (is that a word? [:)])

[La Provence]

Excellent remark !

Will the soft brutally stop the game at the end of 1815 [&:]

[Ursa MAior]

Third to that. Although the death of Napoleon should also mean an automatic loss for the french player.

[barbarossa2]

In reply to Ursa Major's statement, "The death of Napoleon should also mean automatic loss for the French player"

Interesting thought. I think that the Napoleonic wars were the outgrowth of the Revolution which rocked France in the late 18th century. And that the wars from 1792 onwards were the result of a people having deposed their King and claimed rule for themselves (although some would say this happened in England under Charles the I, in 1650, I believe...though could hardly argue to the same extent).

I once wrote optional rules for the board game in which liberty and the principles of the French revolution were championed by an extra player, whose job it was to spread this through Europe by making deals with other players and having at his disposal the ability to incite riots and discord, but he could also SUPPORT governments which supported his cause (always a victory point loss for the monarchies, depending on the extent of the concessions made, and it was risking being a slippery slope which could plunge his lands into revolution themselves). This was done by increasing their manpower and income, as a result of revolutionary zeal.

In effect, the French player was on the side of Liberty, but did not control it. When the French player's armies showed up or conquered a provence, it would become "infected" with this crazy notion, and the monarchs would have to deal with potential uprsisings or unrest, or deal with economic problems. Europe was at war with this idea of liberty and equality (and the idea that a common man could rule an Empire, supposedly in the NAME of the people!). It was the movement's job to overthrow as many monarchies as possible, and gain footholds in as many nations as possible. The player representing this movement, represented in effect, its more radialized intellectual element. Historically, unfortunately even Napoleon coopted the movement for his own gain--and diluted it (I believe).

So would France lose the war if Napoleon died? I believe the Napoleonic wars were merely a phase of the wars of Liberty (or wars against Liberty), and his loss would not NECESSARILY mean an end to the cause of Liberty--to the cause of the French people! Historically, his loss DID mean an end to the revolution and a return of the Monarchy (to Europe's delight), but it did not HAVE to end this way. Adding another force to the game, "Liberty", or "Liberte" as it were, is an impossibility. But I believe it would make the game much more interesting.

I would be happy to get any input on this from any French readers who are well versed in their revolutionary history. [:)]

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:
 
FYI: I have added a resume button on the victory screen. You can resume your game after a player has achieved enough VPs for victory. Technically you will still gain VPs but not achieve victory again. This was done to allow any MP giants to slug it out in a "war to end all wars".
 
The problem with this might be that there is no technology gain so you could play until the year 2006 (Theory ONLY) and still have muskets as the main weapon. I guess this is further proof that war is not progress
 
Thank you

[Ursa MAior]

Hey barbarossa2,

Nappy's death would have definitely put an end to the "Napoleonic wars". [:D]

Joke aside I dont think that the empire of 1804 would have survived his death. No Bourbon restauration of course but after some infighting the whole empire would have had falen apart, just like Alexander's did.

Thanks Marshall for the quick answer.

[Joisey]

Thank you for that option, Marshall. [&o]

Now, when you give us a scenario editor, then we'll be able to program in an advance like rifles over muskets! [;)]

[Camile Desmoulins]

Sometimes is a heaven blessed, v.g. the Brunswick death. The prussian player only think why Hohenlohe is still live, and the Spanish player never give command to Cuesta.

This question we go to another question: I ever think that the original general are lesser than the necessaries, the game need more generals, and sometimes is a wrong general. Jerome?, better Joseph or Victor, is my point of view. This is one of the few failures of the original game.

Camille

[1LTRambo]

ORIGINAL: Joisey

Thank you for that option, Marshall. [&o]

Now, when you give us a scenario editor, then we'll be able to program in an advance like rifles over muskets! [;)]

I understand the EiA platform will be used to develop other games like American Civil War, etc. Therefore you could go one step further, by allowing the game to morf into the Crimea War and then the American Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, etc.[:'(]

[Norden_slith]

I agree, there should at least be a generic general for all countries. Of course, in a way the various corps have intrinsic values, but still. The problem is, that for some countries, a generic general would be better as some of the actual given ones. For example, John of Austria has a value 1.1.2 and the intrinsic value of the austrian corps is 1.1. Thus it would be hard to find a generic general who wouldnt outperform John. In fact, maybe John should be thrown out for a generic counter, possible even a bit more capable, like a 1.1.3 or a 1.2.2 or such.

Suggestions for generic Generals would be:

France: 2.2.2.D instead of Jerome (2.2.1)
Britain: 2.2.2.C
Russia: 1.2.3.D
Austria: 1.2.3.D instead of John
Prussia: 1.2.2.D
Spain: 1.2.2.C instead of Ruby
Turkey: 1.2.3.C

The reason Russia, Austria and Turkey get a leader, able of leading 3 corps is, that they have a lot of corps and relative few leaders.



Norden

ORIGINAL: Camile Desmoulins

Sometimes is a heaven blessed, v.g. the Brunswick death. The prussian player only think why Hohenlohe is still live, and the Spanish player never give command to Cuesta.

This question we go to another question: I ever think that the original general are lesser than the necessaries, the game need more generals, and sometimes is a wrong general. Jerome?, better Joseph or Victor, is my point of view. This is one of the few failures of the original game.

Camille

[bOrIuM]

why there are few generals and some bad ?

Its the game that want to recreate the history as close as possible. The game only use the generals who had acted in the war. Adding a generic general or something else is bad. The king never let a peasant lead an army even if he was better than all of his actual generals. The strategy and tactics value represent the capacities of the general for his history to win battles and not because he's a dumb ass. Add this to the fact that in those time, they not only use the better general to lead battles but those that were influent at the court, and wanted to lead an army (here I refer to better generals that didnt participated to some wars, or to some war that really bad generals had the commandment or the biggest army and were an ass). in the Spanish succession war, Vendome is a really great general, but because of de Bourgogne wanted to lead the army and was influent at the court and not Vendome, he got his army and make France loose.

If you always let john on the side, ur a bad player because John is very usefull against minors. The game is perfect like that, changing it will just do another game that doesnt represent history.

[Camile Desmoulins]

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

why there are few generals and some bad ?

Its the game that want to recreate the history as close as possible. The game only use the generals who had acted in the war. Adding a generic general or something else is bad. The king never let a peasant lead an army even if he was better than all of his actual generals. The strategy and tactics value represent the capacities of the general for his history to win battles and not because he's a dumb ass. Add this to the fact that in those time, they not only use the better general to lead battles but those that were influent at the court, and wanted to lead an army (here I refer to better generals that didnt participated to some wars, or to some war that really bad generals had the commandment or the biggest army and were an ass). in the Spanish succession war, Vendome is a really great general, but because of de Bourgogne wanted to lead the army and was influent at the court and not Vendome, he got his army and make France loose.

If you always let john on the side, ur a bad player because John is very usefull against minors. The game is perfect like that, changing it will just do another game that doesnt represent history.

I'm not agree with this oint of view. When Jerome was an important leader?. Joseph nominally was the leader in Talavera and Ocaña. In the Spanish Army, in the peninsular war, there was another important leaders, army leaders, without counter: O'Donnell, Areizaga (leader of the biggest Spanish army of the whole period, defeated in Ocaña). Some Austrian corps leaders could be in the game, like Liechtenstein as Cavalry leader. Or a Prussian leader: You have Brunswick, Hohelnohe, an Blücher more late. Half of the time of the Great Campaign you have an old fashioned (in the whole sense) leader, Hohenlohe, and only Blücher. And some turkish (or ottoman) leaders too, perhaps. Just the same, British or Russians has enough leaders. I think that more fleet leaders will be a good idea: Villeneuve and Gravina, at least

It's only a chat, I know, I'm sure that Marshall Ellis dont think touch nothing now, probably could be a huge mistake. But I miss some leader counters more

Camille

[yammahoper]

Perhaps a mechanic could be added to the eco phase, Officer Training. $15 to buy an officer, arrives in 18 months. A table 30 result table could be generated using 2d6, 1d6 for the top row, another 1d6 for the vertical row. Officer generated is thus random.

There could be a great deal more, even officer improvement...take a general off the board, invest XX, six months later roll and see if he improves.

yamma

[bOrIuM]

i think you dont understand the EiA game... in this time there were no officers, only nobles who was at the lead of the armies... the fact that they were important or not doesnt matter, the game reproduce the leader that was used in those time by the countries

[Big Bang]

we had a system in our group where one could declare war before the enforced peace period was over by paying 1 pp for each month before the enforced peace elapsed. There was a maximum of six months that one could declare before the end of the enforced peace.
So no one was exactly sure when he would be attacked.
We thought the whole concept of enforced peace to exactly one month a bit strange and so came up with this idea, it made the game a bit more unpredictabel.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Big Bang

we had a system in our group where one could declare war before the enforced peace period was over by paying 1 pp for each month before the enforced peace elapsed. There was a maximum of six months that one could declare before the end of the enforced peace.
So no one was exactly sure when he would be attacked.
We thought the whole concept of enforced peace to exactly one month a bit strange and so came up with this idea, it made the game a bit more unpredictabel.

I would make them drop one LEVEL per month, they want to break a treaty? expect instability.

As for everyone wanting to modify every little thing, while this is not a direct port of EIA it is at least trying to stay close to the original (or at least EIH). These other options would be better done in COG or a EU platform (if anyone can ever fix the EU crashes).

[Joisey]

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

i think you dont understand the EiA game... in this time there were no officers, only nobles who was at the lead of the armies... the fact that they were important or not doesnt matter, the game reproduce the leader that was used in those time by the countries

Dude! A professional officer corps replacing hereditary nobility was precisely what the French Revolution did. [8|]

[Norden_slith]

First of all, this discussion was sparked off to have something to talk about while we wait [:D].

Second, I played this game since i bought it in 1986. So I dare say, I "know" my EiA and its time. Whats more important is, that there are several other games out there before (ex. Frederik the Great) and during (ex. War & Peace) the Napoleonic wars using the Generic leader type. This is usually done because there is a limit to the countermix in boardgames, but it has other merits. These are usually pretty bad Generals, as my counters would suggest. There would be a line of people taking over armies, some good, many bad. Real battles were rare, so usually you didnt know, what youve got until blooded in the field. Take John, as an Archduke (brother of Charles) and 13th child, he was almost destined to become a General. Its certainly not ability. In fact, on a pure statistical note, anybody but a pointless 1.1.1. leader could do as well or better than he did [:D] . On the other hand, his elder brother did very well. Given this, its much more realistic (in some countries at least) to give them random numbers (tendency to the lower end, granted). You'd never really know. Sure, a king/emperor might have a good idea, if this person would become an able general, especially if an able general himself. Given this, why did really bad ones still pop up? Familyties, politics and chance. But there would never be to few of them. An army would allways have someone in charge, be it a courtier, a bumbed lowranker or whatever.

In fact, there are a lot more generals out there, as mentioned by Camile.

Norden

[Norden_slith]

Speaking of things, that could be smarter (my oppinion) in EiA, here another one:

France could with a quarterly manpower of, say, 50 produce 100.000 men a quarter, 400.000 a year, 4 mio over a decade. Even if he didnt fight and just sat there, this would be feasibly in the game. This is a far cry from reality. EiA was designed around the concept of war reocurring on a regular basis. This way, it worked, but it is highly unrealistic. No country could sustain armies of a million men without its economy suffering. There is no upper limit to the amount of troops youre economy can handle. You can fill all corps, all garrisons and all your depots with men - no problemo - in the game. This occurs because you hardly pay any uphold costs for your troops (only the corps and these can be 2000 men or 50.000, same price and the fleets and depots).

Realistically you should pay for the total manpower in your armies plus corps, fleets and depots. In the boardgame thats a lot of work (and the reason for the current solution, I guess), on the PC it wouldnt be, even 1/10 of money could be used.

Secondly, there should be a limit to the troops available without hurting your countries economy. Lets assume France has the mentioned manpower of 50 per quarter. One could assign an upper limit of 4 times (may be 5, Im not sure) the quarterly available manpower, in this case 200 manpower or 400.000 men for all branches. You could recruit more men, but this would start to hurt your economy. I do not know, how much, but I suggest something like for every 20% of your quarterly manpower (France : 10 manpower) youd lose 5% of your total available income to economic strain.

Actually, Im more interested in the principal of a upper limit to any army, than the precise numbers.

[Camile Desmoulins]

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

i think you dont understand the EiA game... in this time there were no officers, only nobles who was at the lead of the armies... the fact that they were important or not doesnt matter, the game reproduce the leader that was used in those time by the countries

Not ever was like this. Spanish generals wasn't aristocracy, but military families, neither British: Wellington arrives to the Peninsular War as Wellesey, his first noble title was baron, and reach it after Talavera. Nor Beresford, Hope, Packeham, Hill, of course Craufurd were nobles. French armies are speaked yet.

In the other side, the question it's not this reflection, but tehre are important armies (Prussian, Austrian, Spanish and Turkish with less leaders that it could be. I understand the game perfectly -I have the first edition of the board game, I'm very elder boy- but I think that the original game, if it has a counter with Hill (he don´t lead any independient army in the whole period) must be counter for other leaders in other countries that need a counter more, or leaders with independient leadership (Victor: independient victories at Espinosa, Medellín & Barrosa; St. Cyr, etc.)

Camille