You're already playing an ad-hoc blend between EiA, EiH, and Matrix/Outflank Games rules -- very mutated naval rules, greatly empowered minor factors, corps on loan instead of combined movement, kingdoms either mandatory or not permissible, tweaked OOBs... of which some are deliberate choices not driven by programming limitations. If you want a faithful reproduction, replete with approximations and loopholes, there's always Cyberboard. Play as you like.
The rest of us can point to areas where faithfulness to the literal rules can be bad -- for instance, the ability to use free states in completely unrealistic ways, even in asymmetrical situations where you can use them in *your* wars without lifting a finger to help them. This can lead to silliness like suicide runs with fleets (and scuttling, once that becomes an option), just to hand the victor a pyrhhic victory. Yippee. Perhaps these should be turned over to an AI unless first conquered, or the patron supports with a DOW... but hey, that'd change the rules, and some would suggest that we can't have that, even though the game already does elsewhere.
Some of the issues are fundamental and even now don't admit to ready solution (notably, the forced retreat of non-combatants from a multinat stat in certain cases), but other issues are merely artifacts of using 1d6, pencils, paper and board.
PP loss / gain question.
Moderator: MOD_EIA
Get over it.
--
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
RE: Get over it.
Grognot,
You are right. Matrix made a HUGE mistake by going with EiH in most situations, it was obviuos that these decisions were by people who had not played the game that much.
BUT, a lot of the things that you say are "wrong" with the original EiA rules can be corrected simply by not playing with a bunch of jackasses, that is, play with people who have the "spirit of the game" in mind. These players will not do unrealistic suicide runs with minors fleets, etc.
If Matrix wanted a Napoleonic Wargame that was not EiA they should have not called it Empires In Arms, since that confuses the people that actually really enjoyed Empires In Arms.
Personally, I wish Matrix had given us a faithful reproduction of EiA, but at the end of the day, I really appreciate their effort in trying.
You are right. Matrix made a HUGE mistake by going with EiH in most situations, it was obviuos that these decisions were by people who had not played the game that much.
BUT, a lot of the things that you say are "wrong" with the original EiA rules can be corrected simply by not playing with a bunch of jackasses, that is, play with people who have the "spirit of the game" in mind. These players will not do unrealistic suicide runs with minors fleets, etc.
If Matrix wanted a Napoleonic Wargame that was not EiA they should have not called it Empires In Arms, since that confuses the people that actually really enjoyed Empires In Arms.
Personally, I wish Matrix had given us a faithful reproduction of EiA, but at the end of the day, I really appreciate their effort in trying.
RE: PP loss / gain question.
Agreed. And, I want to point out that I've softened my position a bit. The rules are pretty clear, but there were examples at the end of the main rules, and those examples may have superceded the phrasing of the rules (that happened a LOT with AH games). So, I think it is still an open question.ORIGINAL: NeverMan
You are not hearing that from me, but Jimmer and bresh seem to think that's best.
As far as non-corps: they don't count.
Neverman, did you quote from a paper copy of the rulebook, or from something off the Internet?
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
RE: PP loss / gain question.
My "interpretation" of the rules is how we understood the rule to read. By "we" I mean the group of guys I used to play EiA with. Actually, I used to play A LONG time ago and that was the way I learned how to play the game from the guys that taught me, but it's also the way I understood the rules to read.
I will try to find some examples/rules of this though online and will get back to you.
I will try to find some examples/rules of this though online and will get back to you.
RE: PP loss / gain question.
My "interpretation" of the rules is how we understood the rule to read. By "we" I mean the group of guys I used to play EiA with. Actually, I used to play A LONG time ago and that was the way I learned how to play the game from the guys that taught me, but it's also the way I understood the rules to read.
I will try to find some examples/rules of this though online and will get back to you.
I have played EiA the boardgame since the mid-1980s with a ton of different gaming groups over the years, and I totally agree with Nevermind in his "interpretation" - I am frankly surprised that there is any other.
ESPECIALLY - if you read the back cover of the original EiA paper rules that list all the ways to lose and gain pp, it says that maximum loss/gain is +/-3 pp PER SIDE- not per player....
erik
RE: PP loss / gain question.
it says that maximum loss/gain is +/-3 pp PER SIDE- not per player....
This makes sense to me. A battle is a battle, and PP loss/gain should be the same for single or combined armies. It shouldn't be that hard to implement proportional gains/losses among sides, based on what the final PP are for a battle and how many corps are involved. Question may be whether to implement fractional PPs or not. That shouldn't be a big deal either.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
RE: Get over it.
ORIGINAL: Grognot
You're already playing an ad-hoc blend between EiA, EiH, and Matrix/Outflank Games rules -- very mutated naval rules, greatly empowered minor factors, corps on loan instead of combined movement, kingdoms either mandatory or not permissible, tweaked OOBs... of which some are deliberate choices not driven by programming limitations. If you want a faithful reproduction, replete with approximations and loopholes, there's always Cyberboard. Play as you like.
The rest of us can point to areas where faithfulness to the literal rules can be bad -- for instance, the ability to use free states in completely unrealistic ways, even in asymmetrical situations where you can use them in *your* wars without lifting a finger to help them. This can lead to silliness like suicide runs with fleets (and scuttling, once that becomes an option), just to hand the victor a pyrhhic victory. Yippee. Perhaps these should be turned over to an AI unless first conquered, or the patron supports with a DOW... but hey, that'd change the rules, and some would suggest that we can't have that, even though the game already does elsewhere.
Some of the issues are fundamental and even now don't admit to ready solution (notably, the forced retreat of non-combatants from a multinat stat in certain cases), but other issues are merely artifacts of using 1d6, pencils, paper and board.
Its fun you presume that the rest of you is the majority.
I think atleast 50% of the players want this to be as close as possible to EIA, and not make up new rules.
I do not think its hard to code, than scutling a minors fleet in a pbm game, which is at war with a MP, could be forbidden to to be scuttled.
In pbm games you can easy implement houserules regarding minors. After all i seen and heard alot of different views.
So all you have to do, is find a group of players who have the same view as yourself.
Regards
Bresh
RE: Get over it.
It is critically important that the allies be able to minimize losses and maximize gains in combats. I posted a lengthy post, including some math, on this back in January. I attach it below.
Similar logic applies to fighting GB at sea.
There are many ways to implement this feature, given that loaning corps is very powerful in some ways (e.g. you can fight someone else's country without being at war with them by loaning your corps to a belligerent, even when in an enforced peace). My opinion is that keeping the old EiA method is best for balance:
Land:
1- If a nation's corps are commited in a battle in which their stack loses, a nation loses PP equal to 0.5 of their corps, rounded up, commited to the battle (including the usual double effect for 20+ factor corps and leaders like Nappy and Nelson)
2 - If a nation's corps are commited in a battle in which their stack wins, a nation gains PP equal to 0.5 of the enemy's corps, rounded up commited to the battle (including the usual double effect for 20+ factor corps and leaders like Nappy and Nelson)
In either case, maximum gains/losses equal to 3 except for bonuses/maluses for leaders (Nappy & Nelson).
Sea:
Same as Land but with fleets equal to 1 each. Not sure if light fleets should be 0.5 or not.
Ken
Hello all. I have been playing EiA for at least 15 years, with at least three significantly different gaming groups who all had slightly different rules interpretations. I understand that lots of people have different opinions and I respect them.
In this case, however, there is a critical game balance problem as the computer game is now played. The game balance problem is caused the lack of combined movement and shared political point gains/losses. The 'loan corps' feature is an attempt to correct what appears to be a problem with the difficulty in programming combined movement.
In every EiA game I have ever played, the goal as the 'at-start' alliance against France (Au/Pr always, usually with Russia, sometimes with Turkey) is to defeat France before it becomes an unstoppable monster. The reason this coalition always occurs is because France's counter density and leadership is much higher than the Allies'. An ideal full six-stack French army under Napoleon would be the Guard, the Artillery and Corps I-IV. This stack has a numerical strength of 20 Guard, 12 Artillery, 13 Cav or so and 90 Inf (there may be some error here), totall strength 135 or so. Morale is about 4.2
The Allies' best combined six-stack under Charles would be 2 Prussian, 2 Austrian and 2 Russian corps, containing the I-II corps of each nation. This has a strength of about 81 Infantry, 10 Guard and 10 Cavalry, totalling 101 factors. Nappy gets a +1 Charles gets a 0. Morale about 3.3
The Austrian best six-stack would have about 75I 5 Guard and 7 Cav, total 87 Factors) under Charles. Nappy gets a +1 Charles gets a 0. Morale about 3.2
The Prussian best six-stack has about 7 Guard, 75 I and 18 Cav (?) total 100 factors under Blucher. Nappy gets a +1 Blucher gets a 0. Morale about 3.4
Given the corps density, leadership and morale advantage, you would say that a 6-corps stack gives the French a 0.9 to 1.0 morale advantage, a 35% numbers advantage and a +1 die roll advantage. In fact, the French can pretty much get numerical parity and a 1.0 morale advantage using only 4 corps.
The French advantage of the +2 Guard, 1.0 morale and +1 die roll means that the French will win about 30% more battles on average than the Allies, and means that they will lose about half as many battles (with a much higher number of ties).
What does this mean politically?
On average, France will win 4 points for Nappy battles, whereas an allied stack will win 3. Given the 30% morale/leadership advantage this really turns out to be about 4.3 verus 2.7 for victories when normalized. Losing, France would lose 5 points 20% of the time whereas the Allies will lose 3 points 50% of the time. Again normalized this works out to be -1 to -1.5. So given equal stack corp numbers France on averave will gain 3.3 PP versus the Allies 1.2 when average losses are subtracted from average gains. Clearly this works out to France's advantage.
In the board game, on average, the Allies tactic for getting over this aparant advantage was twofold: Corps numbers and Splitting Forces. If a 3-country team attacks france they have about twice to 2.5 times the actual numbers of corps, which means that defending minor countries is difficult for France. This is a bit outside the scope of this thread. The Splitting Forces method takes advantage of the fact that under the EiA rules a defender only lost political points based on the number of its corps in the battle, instead of the total number of corps in the battle. As per the ideal stack above, if the Allies were to win the battle they would each get 3pp wheras if they lost they would only lose 1 pp each. Given the normalized math above, this brings down the differential by a factor of about 2.0 as the losses now cost 1/3 and the victories stay the same. You will see that the math then works out to a net difference of 3.3 to 3.2 France to Allies (roughly).
Now of course it's somewhat difficult to get the ideal 6-stack with 2 corps each. You would want to optimize your superstack by stacking 12 corps with Charles and 10 corps with Blucher/Kutuzov. This would still give France a +1 and the other countries a +0 for tactical rating but then gives the Allies a chance to get cav superiority which could bring the odds of getting a +1/+1 situation much higher. This also allows the corps number superiority to become more important as the French have to superstack themselves to avoid getting killed off by numbers alone.
So the rough math in this post is meant to show that if you want combat to be balanced for the "allies", against the numerical and morale advantage that France has, you should employ some form of victory-point splitting mechanism. Otherwise France will always win barring extremely bad luck. This is especially the case as France can split its movement between the Allies (due to the no-combined movement issues) and thus catch them before they can combine. The loaning corps solution is a pretty good one, but it has to be combined with the splitting-VP option or else it's meaningless.
Ken
Similar logic applies to fighting GB at sea.
There are many ways to implement this feature, given that loaning corps is very powerful in some ways (e.g. you can fight someone else's country without being at war with them by loaning your corps to a belligerent, even when in an enforced peace). My opinion is that keeping the old EiA method is best for balance:
Land:
1- If a nation's corps are commited in a battle in which their stack loses, a nation loses PP equal to 0.5 of their corps, rounded up, commited to the battle (including the usual double effect for 20+ factor corps and leaders like Nappy and Nelson)
2 - If a nation's corps are commited in a battle in which their stack wins, a nation gains PP equal to 0.5 of the enemy's corps, rounded up commited to the battle (including the usual double effect for 20+ factor corps and leaders like Nappy and Nelson)
In either case, maximum gains/losses equal to 3 except for bonuses/maluses for leaders (Nappy & Nelson).
Sea:
Same as Land but with fleets equal to 1 each. Not sure if light fleets should be 0.5 or not.
Ken
RE: Get over it.
No, EIA rules state that all nations present with at least one corp/fleet GAIN the same, while they LOSE 1/2 pp per corp/fleet they had in the battle (actually is one pp per fleet but we all agree it should be tuned down to 1/2 due to naval changes.ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
So, what I am hearing is that ALL MP nations gain / lose the same.
What about ONLY having non-corps focrs in the battle only i.e. Freikorps / Cossack?
Non corps do not count against pp's.
Concerning the rest of the discussion, I am forced to agree that experimenting with deviations from original well tested rules could have seriously flawed effects, so lets keep it faithful to EIA
RE: Get over it.
Well, you might as well start complaining about the overly generous reinforcement rules, for instance -- it's entirely legal to drop a full Russian stack on a depot in a minor or conquered province without having a single supply chain that leads to Russia. Or how the victory conditions rules were changed to make exile trivial -- it used to be that ALL victors had to pick it, and agree on the same leader... and so forth. I don't see anybody here pointing out how you can't force the loaning of a corps.
And in that case, you'd better not complain when people pull tricks from the 'gamey' thread, or exploit other rules loopholes. And one might note that if 'balance' is affected, VP bidding can fix that, to a degree -- what it CAN'T fix is the ease silly exploits. VP bidding can only make those exploits mandatory to be competitive.
One gets the impression that some dogmatists would complain if FOW were added to Panzer!, complaining that experimentation *could* be worse than a system which allows omniscience to all tank commanders. Or if people were arguing to preserve the errors found in 1.0 releases... or that the Sun still revolves around the Earth.
And in that case, you'd better not complain when people pull tricks from the 'gamey' thread, or exploit other rules loopholes. And one might note that if 'balance' is affected, VP bidding can fix that, to a degree -- what it CAN'T fix is the ease silly exploits. VP bidding can only make those exploits mandatory to be competitive.
One gets the impression that some dogmatists would complain if FOW were added to Panzer!, complaining that experimentation *could* be worse than a system which allows omniscience to all tank commanders. Or if people were arguing to preserve the errors found in 1.0 releases... or that the Sun still revolves around the Earth.
--
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
RE: Get over it.
Marshall,
I think it would be best if the gamwarded PP on the number of corps each side has in a battle.
Thus, in a battle where 6 French Corp with Napoleon take on 4 Austrian, 2 Prussian and 2 Russian Corps, if France wins they would get 4 PP (3 for the Corps and 1 for Napoleon), Austria would lose 2, Prussia and Russia would lose one.
One of the benefits, IMO, on fighting with an ally is that you share in the success or failure. If I am Prussia, and Austria needs my help fighting france, and Charles is the best commander we are going to use, I want to be able to share in the spolid of victory, and that means getting PP for my contribution. It also means taking the risks as well, which means losing PP.
Thresh
I think it would be best if the gamwarded PP on the number of corps each side has in a battle.
Thus, in a battle where 6 French Corp with Napoleon take on 4 Austrian, 2 Prussian and 2 Russian Corps, if France wins they would get 4 PP (3 for the Corps and 1 for Napoleon), Austria would lose 2, Prussia and Russia would lose one.
One of the benefits, IMO, on fighting with an ally is that you share in the success or failure. If I am Prussia, and Austria needs my help fighting france, and Charles is the best commander we are going to use, I want to be able to share in the spolid of victory, and that means getting PP for my contribution. It also means taking the risks as well, which means losing PP.
Thresh
RE: Get over it.
ORIGINAL: Grognot
One gets the impression that some dogmatists would complain if FOW were added to Panzer!, complaining that experimentation *could* be worse than a system which allows omniscience to all tank commanders. Or if people were arguing to preserve the errors found in 1.0 releases... or that the Sun still revolves around the Earth.
I am not at all a dogmatist, and originally I even proposed proportional (to corps) gain for winners. However, it seems people on the forum is divided on the subject and no general consensus can be reached.
In this situation, yes, I think it is wiser to stick to the original rules, being EIA one of the most played, tested and successful grand strategy game.