AAR - Ralegh

[Erik Rutins]

Don't form any conclusions yet folks, another chapter in the AAR is coming right up...

[bresh]

Ack i notiched they changed the map ?
 
Making walking from france-england.
 
Thats not on my empire in arms maps.
Why make so drastic a change ?
 
Regards
Bresh

[Norden_slith]

Its an optional rule in the original game.
So, with any luck it still is [:)].

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

ORIGINAL: Roads

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.

I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?

Yes. That is quite worrisome. Hopefully that gets fixed.

[Norden_slith]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone

ORIGINAL: Roads

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.

I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?

I agree, it is a change to have France and England beeing able to take conditionals from each other. As the main contenders and the games main driving forces, they are required to surrender unconditionally to each other. So thats changed. But also in the boardgame there was an option to let them start at peace with each other, so maybe, what we are seeing here are options. On the other hand, Raleigh stated, he'd chosen all standard options...

Finally France is not lending money, but paying reparations, which England choose as victory condition.

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Norden
(snip)

I agree, it is a change to have France and England beeing able to take conditionals from each other. As the main contenders and the games main driving forces, they are required to surrender unconditionally to each other. So thats changed. But also in the boardgame there was an option to let them start at peace with each other, so maybe, what we are seeing here are options. On the other hand, Raleigh stated, he'd chosen all standard options...

Finally France is not lending money, but paying reparations, which England choose as victory condition.

second point first: It wasn't the reparations i was referring to (i know what those are), it was this line on page 1 of the AAR:
" February 1805

In February, we proposed an alliance with Prussia, and ask our allies for money. Spain says no, but Austrian promises 10$ for next eco phase. "

The A.I. should be a lot smarter than that.

Secondly, the lack of the FR/GB always at war (excepting unconditional surrender with explicit terms)
*SEVERELY* unbalances the game, and turns it into a MUCH harder game for all players except FR and GB.

As a FR player, a small surrender to GB is not a tremendous loss, it's almost attractive - in exchange for 5 pp.s, you suddenly have freedom of the seas. If you count the Dutch and Neapolitans, FR has the 2nd largest fleet on the board

Guess what this does to Russia (who you have a larger fleet than, and if he *IS* brave enough to go to sea, he faces the ever-present threat of GB deciding it's a good time to earn some cheap Political Points and to more firmly establish its mastery of the seas by crushing the RUS fleet.

SPain is suddenly in the same boat (no pun intended) It makes taking the FR war to RUssia or Spain incredibly easier, as teh FR can invade and even sea-supply and reinforce. Gone are the need to make Poland, and the long cossack-plagued supply chains -- FR just invades St Petersburg and uses that as a base. I could go on, but you can figure out all the other possibilities easily, once you think about FR having total naval mobility...

As for GB - heck, I'd just as cheerfully give up the 5 pp.s to surrender if i was the GB player.

Why? Because next time FR attacks Russia, it's the work of a moment for GB to attack SP, and the odds of a GB force defeating the SP (wellington and 4.5 morale v. castanos and 3.0 morale) are very good - which means you can burn the entire SP fleet in port.

After that, who is going to keep GB from prying denmark and Sweden away from teh Rus? If the chance arises, the Rus fleet will be sunk (or it will all hide in the Black sea).

At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).

The other 5 players are stuck being the punching-bags for the two stronger-than-usual Major Powers.
ESPECIALLY if FR/GB choose to ally - the game can get pretty frustrating for the other players

imagine SP, with no matter how good of a SP player facing an allied FR/GB - no matter *how* skilled your tactics, no matter *how* good your diplomacy (heck, you could talk all 4 other players into declaring war on FR/GB and it would make no difference) - you'll lose 90% of the fights, and will be *forced* into unconditional surrender within a few turns by either total destruction in the field or the loss of all your capitals.

SP (and most others) will be forced into surrendering immediately upon D.O.W. in the vain hope of being able to join in as a vulture in the other little wars, so that you can scrap for 3rd or 4th place, far far behind the Major Pair.

There's a game-balance reason that rule was put into the game (in a later errata of the General Mag strict restrictions were also put on their ever being to ally)

Fortunately, in a multi-player game you can agree w/ each other that you are using that optional rule (whether the comp-game has it or not), and i *strongly* advise those of you who have never played the board game to adopt it.

I have a lot of experience backing that recommendation up, but feel free to ask others who've played for their opinions, of course

(oh, there's a related optional rule that came out in the Erratta, it states that FR and GB can *never* ally - not even if at peace after the harsh unconditional -- **UNLESS** one of them has ceased to be a major power --- which was another optional rule -- you can find the original rules online if you want to see the actual restrictions on FR/GB peace, and the rules for losing dominance, since i don't think the're included in teh game)

[bresh]

Sounds more like empire in harms.
 
Different ships + map editing ? We got Guard cavalry  to ?
I only know the basic empire in arms. So wanna know how much has changes ?
 
Kind Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

Bresh:
 
1. The map is different from that std EiA BUT has more minors (From EiH4.0).
2. We're have added the ship types (Light ships - good for piracy missions, Transports - good for transporting). These are different types than std EiA BUT the naval combat is the same as EiA.
3. We have implemented the minor diplomacy of EiH 3.0 where you can influence / ally minor nations.
 
That's about the only add-ins from EiH that we included. If you've played EiA then you shouldn't have a problem with EiANW.
 
 
 
 

[Jabba]

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

So is this there as an optional rule in the computer version?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Jabba

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

So is this there as an optional rule in the computer version?

As far as i remember its a optional rule in the boardgame rules, though never heard it not beeing used.

Regards
Bresh

[darken92]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Thanks for the AAR.

Sadly, it has made me less interested in purchasing the game.

To see the British running around with land armies besieging Paris and winning and getting a conditional peace out of France in 1805 shows just how broken the game can be.

The AI appears incompetent.

Certainly made this a must buy game to a maybe buy game.

This game with War in Flames are two of the best boargames I have played. I thought this was no brainer option. Great game that would be great to play and you see those sort of actions.

I will now wait to see how they go before purchasing. Very disappointed.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
(snip)
At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).

Agree with all the rest except this: BR will declare war on FR just to gobble up the PPs from trashing their fleet and then go for their win. Once the fleet is trashed, France most likely will not build it instead relying on econ manip and quick border raids to keep their PPs flowing.

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
(snip)
At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).

Agree with all the rest except this: BR will declare war on FR just to gobble up the PPs from trashing their fleet and then go for their win. Once the fleet is trashed, France most likely will not build it instead relying on econ manip and quick border raids to keep their PPs flowing.

imho a GB player short-sighted enough to DoW France again to try for pp.s on his fleet (except at the very end of course) will lose a lot more than he gains. A GB at peace with france can slap Spanish corps around at will for a lot more pp.s --- but once the war with France is on, french corps and french leaders make Spain off-limits for GB. Same goes for every nation on the board, as FR I'd lend at least one FR corps and a hot leader to anyone facing GB if he DoW'd me

to keep up with FR in the p.p./VP race, GB *has* to fight land battles. Once the GB navy has savaged the first sacrificial lamb at sea (and if he is at peace with FR), every single fleet is going to be parked in the high-defense ports.

And then, how's GB going to earn any pp.s? Napoleon will be making hay with the prussians/spanish/austrians in a cycle, and Britain can't compete without landing troops on the ground.

and those troops earn a LOT more pp.s when not facing FR leaders, mass and morale.

So, as GB *I'd* never DoW France again (unless it was critical) - but you're free to do as you like! : )

[Murat]

[&:] Britain wins(won) by default and has(had) the ability to deduct pps from others. France needs(ed) almost 10pp an econ phase just to get to 100% of their victory condition. Fleet movement is faster than land movement so a Britain at war can keep the French running all over the board trying to stop the few British corps once the French fleet is sunk and the hulls added to Britain.  Chasing the Brits all over is wasted time as you pointed out since French pps are closer at hand so Britain really does not lose in a DoW. Lending units is new to the computer game, somethng you could not do in the past and I do not know what the rules are for getting them back but you can forget me lending any portion of the Grande Armee out if I am France. With the possible exception of a Spanish ally, everyone else is target practice.

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Murat

[&:] Britain wins(won) by default and has(had) the ability to deduct pps from others. France needs(ed) almost 10pp an econ phase just to get to 100% of their victory condition. Fleet movement is faster than land movement so a Britain at war can keep the French running all over the board trying to stop the few British corps once the French fleet is sunk and the hulls added to Britain. Chasing the Brits all over is wasted time as you pointed out since French pps are closer at hand so Britain really does not lose in a DoW. Lending units is new to the computer game, somethng you could not do in the past and I do not know what the rules are for getting them back but you can forget me lending any portion of the Grande Armee out if I am France. With the possible exception of a Spanish ally, everyone else is target practice.

I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?

the FR don't need to run everywhere to keep the Brits at bay, they just need to leave a small corps in SP and TU (perhaps other small targets) - if the Brits appear, drop a good leader there.

You don't need to leave a large army anywhere. Though if I've just drubbed Prussia (for example) and GB wants to attack them afterwards to vulture some points, I'll happily ally with PR and send him 100men and a leader - just to deny GB the points.

though i'm speaking of the old game, i don't know how the computer-game lending units works or course

FR can easily prevent GB from earning any pp.s in land battles versus SP/AU/PR (those nations simply decline field combat until FR arrives, and if GB is foolish enough to follow them into the interior of their nations, they risk having the Grand Armee arrive in between them and the sea - FR can move *very* fast with the double-turn.

GB has a tough time squeezing many pp.s out of Russia, due to the comparative size of the armies.

Which leaves TU as the only real target if you are at war with FR - whereas if GB keeps peace with FR, he can whack SP for points also - and even vulture Prussia (maybe even Austria) post loss-to-france

Anyway - I as GB would not DoW FR, I think I'll make points faster that way.
My style of play as FR is "I can beat up SP/PR/AU, but no one else can!"

You as GB would DoW FR - that's OK - that's why the game has such great replay value!

maybe one day we'll get a chance to try our ideas out on each other.... : )

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?

Well no but we have had good players. GB has gotten a win though.

the FR don't need to run everywhere to keep the Brits at bay, they just need to leave a small corps in SP and TU (perhaps other small targets) - if the Brits appear, drop a good leader there.

You don't need to leave a large army anywhere. Though if I've just drubbed Prussia (for example) and GB wants to attack them afterwards to vulture some points, I'll happily ally with PR and send him 100men and a leader - just to deny GB the points.

though i'm speaking of the old game, i don't know how the computer-game lending units works or course

Well under the old rules stacking with these nations requires you to be allied with them and at war with Britain. You also are not allowed to loan anyone corps or leaders except under the peace consition.

FR can easily prevent GB from earning any pp.s in land battles versus SP/AU/PR (those nations simply decline field combat until FR arrives, and if GB is foolish enough to follow them into the interior of their nations, they risk having the Grand Armee arrive in between them and the sea - FR can move *very* fast with the double-turn.

GB has a tough time squeezing many pp.s out of Russia, due to the comparative size of the armies.

Which leaves TU as the only real target if you are at war with FR - whereas if GB keeps peace with FR, he can whack SP for points also - and even vulture Prussia (maybe even Austria) post loss-to-france

Anyway - I as GB would not DoW FR, I think I'll make points faster that way.
My style of play as FR is "I can beat up SP/PR/AU, but no one else can!"

You as GB would DoW FR - that's OK - that's why the game has such great replay value!

maybe one day we'll get a chance to try our ideas out on each other.... : )

Sea movement can also be doubled and you are talking about a 7 move over the sea zones (which themselves are large) -v- a 4 over land. Yes withdrawl into the interior can work but some minors then are left open. I actually want to try my strategies against several people here! I am most eager for battle!

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?

Well no but we have had good players. GB has gotten a win though.

Of course GB can win - but you seemed to be saying that DoW'ing FR made sense because GB could then win the default way, which i disagreed with.

Well under the old rules stacking with these nations requires you to be allied with them and at war with Britain. You also are not allowed to loan anyone corps or leaders except under the peace consition.

My point exactly. If GB does not DoW france, france can't lend corps/leaders to GB's opponents (unless FR wants to give up the 5 pps for the DoW himself.

And yes, that is would exactly my strategy as FR if GB DoW'd me - ally with and aid anyone GB attacks (like i said, I can attack them for pp.s, but not anyone else)

Sea movement can also be doubled and you are talking about a 7 move over the sea zones (which themselves are large) -v- a 4 over land. Yes withdrawl into the interior can work but some minors then are left open. I actually want to try my strategies against several people here! I am most eager for battle!

yes, but moving 14 sea-areas will do you no good at all once all the fleets are parked in safe ports.

If you think you can move *ARMIES* 14 areas before the enemy has time to react (like the FR can move 8 before the enemy can react), that won't work. After the first naval phase, your enemies will see you've moved and react somewhat. With limited sea movement, major invasions could only go 4 areas so it was more limited, but i don't think matrix included that.

Sure, you can still move your army faster by sea than the FR can keep up by land, but the FR *don't* have to keep up by land. They don't need the whole army. All they need is 2-3 corps and a great FR leader (which can appear on any corps any turn). So a few well positioned FR corps here and there can watch the GB invasion forces race all around the board all they want, and still be in 2-3 turns of whacking them no matter where they land (in the pr/au/sp theater of war, of course).

Any army in the game has usually greater mass than teh GB army, the one thing that gives the Brits the edge is greater morale and leadership. And the arrival of FR corps and leaders seriously eats away a lot of that edge. GB can't afford to fight even fights against greater mass.

As far as retreat into the interior goes, don't imagine that your enemies have to wholesale abandon areas so that you can plunder all their minors un-opposed. All they have to do is pull back 1 area from the coast (so wellington can not land on them) - then pull back maybe one turn, possibly 2 (until FR corps and leaders arrive --- there's very few sp/pr/au areas that the FR can't reach in 3 turns if fully supplied by their hosts).

In that time, you may have conquered 1-2 minors, sure. But you'll lose them just as quickly once the large armies pull into sight (GB's army just can't bring enough people into the field)

So you'll end up with a net gain of zero unless you risk a field battle against FR-supplemented and led armies (which GB can not do for long, as you just can't replace the losses fast enough)

So again - I don't like the fact that GB and FR can go to peace more easily than the HARSH unconditionals listed in the EiA rules, but if they *DO* allow it, I as GB would never be the one to DoW France afterwards

Maybe if the game is any good, we can set up a pbem game where I am FR and you are GB, and we can put these ideas to the test... : )

After all, everything we've written back and forth applies to FR/GB *before* surrender also, so we could try it out all game long if we never got a surrender out of the other.

interested?

[yammahoper]

Limit of 4 sea spaces was an optional rule (sea movement was reduced by one hex to a minimum of four per corp carried over X, I forget the particulars.  We used it once then dropped it).
 
In the board game, you cannot ally with a nation for one year after the end of a war or the breaking of a treaty.  Thus Fr would not be able to support a nation it just defeated if GB wants to then attack it.  By the rules, access can only be granted to an ally, though I have played with some who house ruled that to access can be granted to anyone with permission.  This rule prevents such abuse as GB sailing its army in a port, be it major or minor, without permission, so it will not lose the army by failing to disembark, but GB wants to be able to set sail and continue with the army, which requires a port.  Likewise, major powers cannot just take a shortcut through another nations territory, or try to hide in superior defensive terreign in a minors territory.
 
The French are not all powerful.  Considering the average 10vp an eco phase needed to win, I am not surprised that I have only seen france win in the hands of our best players, while even our average players could win with russia and GB.  France has to be a masterful player to avoid the often inevitable coalition against it AND to stagger wars out to stay on the high end of the political status sheet.
 
If this game is half the board game, it will still be exceptional.  I have seen some wild stuff happen, all of it fun, from the fight the brits couldnt lose but managed to throw three ones against three sixes by the turk, to 50 spanish factors obliterating 20 french factors under Davout and Davout being captured, to the might Au gaining control of Sweden and a few game years later pronging the poor russian from north and south, with his might navy of 21 ships and an inherient -1 mod to its die rolls beating back the full russian navy, blockading the port, then the swedes taking the city and causing the scuttling of the russian navies, the death of Napolean and Wellington in the same battle and the use of those three six sided dice for target practice the same day...this is a great game.
 
However, I do agree Fr and GB should start at war and only be able to surrender via unconditional, with or with out the mandatory picks required in the table top version (unconditional access and remove two fleets are what the french demand, with one option left for them to choose, while the brits demand the removal of Napolean...one neat rule from the table top game, to remove a leader, all nations involved in the peace had to pick that option, and I have seen GB left hanging when his allies balk and want other conditions...unless GB payed them).
 
Now, it has been many years since I played EiA, so if I miscall any of the old rules, please forgive me.
 
yamma

[JavaJoe]

Nothing stops you from making a house rule that requires GB and France must select XYZ unconditonal conditions.

The program doesn't enforce this but that doesn't stop the players from enforcing it. When forming up games I'm pretty sure that when playing human opponents (the best AI I've ever seen) that 1 player will be France and 1 player GB. An agreement can be reached to help resolve that issue.

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

Limit of 4 sea spaces was an optional rule (sea movement was reduced by one hex to a minimum of four per corp carried over X, I forget the particulars. We used it once then dropped it).

In the board game, you cannot ally with a nation for one year after the end of a war or the breaking of a treaty.

you can't ally for 1 year after breaking an alliance, there is no such limit after ending a war.

the fleets speed was reduced by 1 for carrying corps (any number), but also for each extra fleet counter, so sizable invasion fleets reduced to 4.