CleverDevils2 AAR

[gwheelock]

Yes; but there IS a countermove to that idea.  That is to do an EARLY (before
being hurt badly) surrender (probably conditional unless EVERYONE asked for
an UNconditonal) and then pick ONE member of the coalition to stay at war
with - and beat them as hard as I could as punishment (France could still
beat any ONE other MP - even after losing a war as long as he doesn't get
too badly hurt before giving up)
 
I would also consider this a major backstab from my allies - which would mean
that they would get no more assistance from me.  (I have been funneling $ and
as many spare pp's to other nations as I can since the beginning of the game)
 

[Jimmer]

My rule of thumb is that I never backstab anybody unless there is an immediate victory that presents itself. If there's any guesswork involved, I won't do it. Only when the move that constitutes a backstab ends the game by the end of the next econ. phase, with me as one of the victors.
 
In any other situation presents itself, I keep my word. Even if it means likely losing the game, that's the way I operate. I figure if I was too stupid to make the right decisions during negotiations, then, well, "I made my bed; now I get to sleep in it."
 
Note that this is just playing historically. With the exception of France, the nations of this era could be mostly trusted to keep their promises, at least on the surface. Napoleon kept only those promises which he deemed worthy (to himself) of keeping, and only as long as it benefited him. Which didn't amount to many. I have never played France (against people), but I might change this practice as France. I would have to think about it.
 
I agree with gwheelock: Said "allies" would never be allies with me again, in this or any other EiA game we played.
 
(NOTE: This isn't always my practice, in all games. Just EiA and others like it (I call them "chivalrous" games). In Diplomacy or Machiavelli, well, you can trust me as far as you can throw me, and at my weight, that's not very far.)

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Yes; but there IS a countermove to that idea.  That is to do an EARLY (before
being hurt badly) surrender (probably conditional unless EVERYONE asked for
an UNconditonal) and then pick ONE member of the coalition to stay at war
with - and beat them as hard as I could as punishment (France could still
beat any ONE other MP - even after losing a war as long as he doesn't get
too badly hurt before giving up)

Historically, this is what some of the powers tried to do, actually. Austria fought one pair of battles in 1805, and then declined to fight again. Again in 1809. But, the wars were really short, if you only count the times of open hostilities on the battlefield. They were doing, effectively, a "quick surrender to avoid getting trounced" option.

It just didn't work very well for them, in most cases.

[Jimmer]

By the way, the computer game only allows one winner, but I've always liked the "several winners are possible" way the original game was set up. I hope they add that.
 
Because, that way of determining victory meant that only a small number of powers are ever really "out of it".
 
For those who don't remember, the person who caused the end of the game was the first one to cross the victory point boundary. But, that just triggered and end-of-game step: Add ones home nation (non-free state) manpower to the current victory point tally. If THIS total exceeded that powers victory point goal, then that player was a winner as well.
 
What this means is that an alliance that has one dominating nation can still stick together. France and Turkey come to mind, for instance. If France truly helps Turkey out a lot, Turkey may very well be the nation that triggers the end-of-game step. But, then, France is very likely to also be a victor.
 
Without this, there is likely to be a lot of "spite moves" towards the end of the game. And, while von Blucher's attitude towards Napoleon could rate as "spiteful", he wasn't being stupid about it. In a game, one can be stupid and just hurt someone "because". But, in real life, such moves tend to get one killed (in wartime).
 
So, I resolved right after I saw the victory conditions entry in the manual for EiANW that I was going to "count" at the end, even without their help.
 
I hope they add that as at least an option later.

[gwheelock]

OK; here is the status thru the November dp phase

Oct 1805 :

Turkey DOWs Tripolitainia; Spain gets control.
Turkey makes successful breakin.
Spain forms alliance with France.
Garrison in Hesse (besieged by France; controlled by Russia) fails forage
allowing France to enter city.

Major bug found : Britain DOWed Algeria & had control of the city in Sept.
Turkey formed the Ottoman Empire in Sept & Britain was ejected from the
city (& couldnt re-enter). Britain is still listed as "at war" with the entity
"Algeria" (which does not appear to exist anymore) but NOT Turkey or
the Ottoman Empire. British corp & garrison are both utimatly (November)
repatriated to Sardinia


Nov 1805 :

France DOWs Bavaria; Austria gets control

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

OK; here is the status thru the November dp phase

Oct 1805 :

Turkey DOWs Tripolitainia; Spain gets control.
Turkey makes successful breakin.
Spain forms alliance with France.
Garrison in Hesse (besieged by France; controlled by Russia) fails forage
allowing France to enter city.

Major bug found : Britain DOWed Algeria & had control of the city in Sept.
Turkey formed the Ottoman Empire in Sept & Britain was ejected from the
city (& couldnt re-enter). Britain is still listed as "at war" with the entity
"Algeria" (which does not appear to exist anymore) but NOT Turkey or
the Ottoman Empire. British corp & garrison are both utimatly (November)
repatriated to Sardinia


Nov 1805 :

France DOWs Bavaria; Austria gets control

Did the Brits bring enough food to Sardinia


Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

It turns out that the corps is short one factor from what it should have, and the garrison only showed up on France's copy of the map, and then only until the reinforcement phase of Nov. Grrrr.

Turkey has agreed to ally and cede Algeria to me, but that sure ties both of our hands for a while. So, in the end, Turkey will be up 1 PP (min) from where she would have been (not counting the Ottoman Empire), and I'm down 2. One of those (for each of us, +1 & -1), though, could have been avoided if Turkey had had the Algerians march into the mountains, thus avoiding the battle.

The little glitches in this game are really starting to bother me.

[gwheelock]

Ok; here is the rest of the info from November 1805:

France conquors Hesse from Russia (controlled FS).


Napoleon, Murat & 2 corp (45I 6C) attack (Austrian controlled) Bavaria corp in
Area423 (between Munich & Ulm).
Chits are Assault vs Defend - Result France loses 2I, Bavaria is eliminated in persuit

[gwheelock]

France makes successful breakin in Munich with 1 corp (no leader)
eliminating Bavaria garrison

[Jimmer]

Rumors have been spreading like wildfire that the British Royal Navy find and exterminate some "bloody French vermin" on the open seas. The scum have apparently locked themselves into ports, and spend their nights drinking and their days getting chewed out for the previous nights' actions.
 
Why won't the Corsican Usurper FIGHT? It's hardly worth having a war when the enemy is hiding from you.
 
Back to tea time, I guess.
 
King James of England

[gwheelock]

Ok; Updates for dec 1805 :

France conquors Bavaria

Britain allies with Turkey (this is to correct a problem where Britain DOWed Algeria
but couldn't conquor it because of a problem that occured when Turkey created
the Ottoman Empire between his attack & what would have been the conquest.

Here is the current victory point status

[gwheelock]

And here is the political status chart:

[gwheelock]

I am also going to post an end-of-year general overview of
what & where everyone & everything is at for those who are
trying to keep up with developments; but may have missed someting.

We'll start in the frozen northlands where Benningsen is guarding St. Pete
against attack by attack from icebergs.

[gwheelock]

Meanwhile Tsar Alex is enjoying the warmer climes

[gwheelock]

Meanwhile; the Austro-Turkish boarder is garrisoned
(I wouldn't say WELL garrisoned; since ALL of the units on BOTH
sides are 1 [usually militia] factor)

[gwheelock]

Meanwhile; the Turks have created the O-E with everything except Morroco (Spanish)
and Tripolitania (Turkish separate FS); but have promised to cede Algeria to
Britain to correct a progam bug

[gwheelock]

Italy is split between Spain & Austria (with a couple of French conq at the top)

[gwheelock]

Piedmont, Lombardy & Venice are all FS (altho' the Emperour Napoleon
has reported that SOMEONE sent the Venitians the wrong flag -
"those Austrian flags belong in my throphy room ... not out on flagpoles" he said)

[gwheelock]

The Austrian army has moved to winter quarters while the Emperour Napoleon and
a few freiends are enjoying some skiiing in Bavaria

[gwheelock]

Prussia dreams of past glories; but does not have any firm plans for
future wars (not having an ARMY tends to .... restrict .... your options
in that manner). He appears to be very trusting of his neighbors.