1.03 status update for June 17th!

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

The EiA errata are super easy to find. Look what google found me in about 2.5 seconds: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/errata.html

While this is true, Matrix would have to "officially" have access to them. Otherwise, they would potentially be violating a copyright.

[Thresh]

They weren't untested.

Quite a few of us have played EIH in the past, and while IMO some of the rules are nothing but chrome that slow the game down, the minor changes were some of the more popular ones.

There does come a point in time though where you can add to much detail. I think that was EiH's failure. In an effort to become hyper historical, it became unwieldy to play.

Todd

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Well, I for one, don't find ALL of the EiH rules bad. The map, for example is much better, at least on land. Plus, the idea of having every neutral minor gain factors when DOWed, so they're not pushovers, that's good, too.

I disagree on both these points. I have no problems if extra minors and forces for minors without corps are included as optionals, but to be frank it seriously messes with game balance to introduce a lot of untested changes of this nature, and then make them a mandatory part of the ruleset.

[baboune]

Without the 5:1 optional, most of the game is about having the biggest stack.  Big stack rules to the detriment of movement or strategy.

This rule and supply depot restriction  (max 4 corps) are crucial elements to a fluid combat and strategic game.

[KenClark]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

The EiA errata are super easy to find. Look what google found me in about 2.5 seconds: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/errata.html

While this is true, Matrix would have to "officially" have access to them. Otherwise, they would potentially be violating a copyright.

First of all, the rights to EiA that were owned by Avalon Hill lapsed and reverted back to ADG (including copyright to the rules). I know this because I was at one point part of a group who were negotiating with Harry to get rights to republish the board game a few years ago. (We did not get our act together so this was not a long negotiation, be that as it may). So, given that Matrix has a licence with ADG to make the game, they would also have had the licence to reproduce the errata rule (as they did with many of the rules in the game).

Second of all, the effect of the rule (5:1 force multiplier = trivial combat) cannot be copyrighted as it is not an expression of an idea, but merely an idea or algorithm, and could have been implemented without violating any copyright (as could all of the rules of EiA for that matter, as long as you don't substantially copy the text of the rule).

Thanks for playing.

[Thresh]

While I like the 5:1 rule in some respects, there are occasions where its broken and should not apply IMO.  I'd like to see an expansion on the rule, but I need to work some numbers to see if they work OK.

Todd

[KenClark]

Todd - I'd be glad to hear some examples of where it's broken.

I know in the basic Austria v. Napoleon scenario you can screen off Vienna from Napoleon such that there is only 1 battle that can be fought on Vienna, which is not very helpful to Napoleon. However, given that there are no PP for the scenario anyway, that isn't really an example.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: baboune

Without the 5:1 optional, most of the game is about having the biggest stack.  Big stack rules to the detriment of movement or strategy.

Sounds like historical accuracy is sacrificed with this rule, if it truly cuts down on "big stacks".

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: baboune

Without the 5:1 optional, most of the game is about having the biggest stack.  Big stack rules to the detriment of movement or strategy.

Sounds like historical accuracy is sacrificed with this rule, if it truly cuts down on "big stacks".

So, historically speaking, there was just one big army moving all around all the time, jumping back and forth from Hanover to Romagna in less than 1 month?

I guess I need to go back to history class.

[baboune]

Right Jimmer.

The 1812 campaign and Waterloo was just one big stack: it is not like anyone got any reinforcements or anything moved... I mean surely... Wellington could have done it all by himself... And they all got together in one place to fight it out.

LOL

[baboune]

Or maybe we could simplify the map so that you only get one area per Major Power.  This way you can really have big stacks

[Jimmer]

Yes, you should go back to reading your history, I guess. Or, practice your math skills.

How many men fought at Ulm and Austerlitz? ~ 68k vs 90k. Now, translate that into factors in this game: ~ 68 factors vs 90 factors. Sure seems like nearly the entire cadre of factors for all three nations was present in these battles. Certainly each power committed the equivalent of roughly half of the games starting factors to these battles.

How about the march to Russia? 650,000 men started the march. In game terms (1000 per factor), that's more factors than fit into all of the corps for France, Germanic states, and Poland combined. Even at 2000 per factor, that's 325 factors, a MASSIVE pile of troops.

Yes, history during this period is filled with the game's "big stacks".

[Soapy Frog]

You are making a persuasive argument against yourself Jimmer.
 
5:1 trivials allows for a great deal more maneuver and smaller operations. The main battles tend to still be fought out between the big stacks, however it is much less neccessary to keep all your corps clustered together for security at all times and it is possible to get the breathing room to send out subsidiary forces to do other tasks, something that is near suicidal without screening (except for a double moving France of course).
 
There is an added benefit also of slowing down the pace of warfare somewhat as both sides will tend to screen to buy time as they jockey for advantageous terrain or to strike at each others supply lines to force a battle.
 
In short the game gets way more interesting.

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

What you don't seem to accept, is that it is NOT an important rule to many players. Perhaps the game designer(s) were in this group.

Plus, the designer(s) of EIANW may have chosen to implement this by the act of having small battle be resolved by computer. This was a reasonable direction to take if they didn't realize that the political point issue was important to some people.

The 5:1 rule is hugely important....regardless of how many players know about it or not. It's the difference between EiA being a crap shoot involving mega-stacks and EiA the strategy game.

I have never played EiA without the rule...and I never would.

[baboune]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Yes, you should go back to reading your history, I guess. Or, practice your math skills.

How many men fought at Ulm and Austerlitz? ~ 68k vs 90k. Now, translate that into factors in this game: ~ 68 factors vs 90 factors.

[&o]Yes that is probably what 4 french corps vs 4 allied corps? That is big stack Surely you are kidding.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
How about the march to Russia? 650,000 men started the march. In game terms (1000 per factor), that's more factors than fit into all of the corps for France, Germanic states, and Poland combined. Even at 2000 per factor, that's 325 factors, a MASSIVE pile of troops.

[>:]And those 650 00 men never actually fought a single battle. And, also 200 000 never even entered Russia, they "smartly" stayed behind (damn those German)... Hi hi hi


We want the 5:1 rule and we want it now

[Spartan07]

Well who would ever have thought you would be negative:)

Just to let you know lots of people are playing the game and really enjoying it. Marshal will get there and I think him for his committment...

[baboune]

Go Marshall! Go!
[8D]

[NeverMan]

So that one battle was the only battle that was going on at the time for either of those nations?

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Yes, you should go back to reading your history, I guess. Or, practice your math skills.

It all depends on whose history you read.

In history class in schools in Russia, it is taught that the battle of Borodino was a great Russian victory. In schools in France, it is taught that it was a great French victory. It is also taught that Trafalgar was a great French victory (it was the day they killed Nelson and if they hadn't achieved that, then France would be English today). Can anyone here who went to school in the USA remember what they were taught about the War of 1812? All of my USA educated friends reply with "no, nothing at all, we didn't learn about that one" -- why not -- because the USA lost.

I was once asked to write an alternative timeline if Edward the Black Prince had become King of England and lived a long life. In summary:

* Western Europe is an English speaking colony.
* Napoleon Bonaparte was an accounts clerk at a transport company.
* Adolph Hitler was a photographer who failed art class and ended up working on wildlife documentaries.
* Scotland is an uninhabited wasteland.

Truth? Probably not, but it's all relative.

[Thresh]

Ken,

Lets assume I am playing France. In my main stack, I have Napoleon, Murat, the Guard, Artillery, and 3,4, 5 and 6 Corps. For arguments sake, lets assume they are all full.
Thats 20g, 12a, 80i, and 15c. 127 factors in six Corps, enough Cav to never be doubled by most stacks, and no tactical penalties. 127,000 of Frances finest.

Currrently, 1 Corps with 1 militia factor in it can stop it's movement for an entire month. On a personal level, that's just wrong. On a historical level,it never happened. Not once in the Napoleonic era (1792-1815) have I found 1000 men stopping the progress of 127,000 men for an entire month.

What I have been thinking of is a modification to the trivial battle rule. If the attacker outnumbers the defender by more than X, the defender is removed, but the attacker loses a movement point.

The problem is what determines "X". At some point, you have to take into account the defenders force, and how it compares to the attacker. As an example, 20K men defending against 100K men is a trivial combat currently. Those numbers make some sense, and there's some history to back that up. So perhaps a rule that says something to the effect of "if the attacker outnumber the defender more than X, but less than Y, a trivial combat is fought." If X were 5:1, and y was 10:1, would that be an equitable rule?

I am on board with the idea of lone Corps acting as a rearguard to delay the attacker. But the numbers have to make sense, from both a historical and numerical point of view IMO.

Todd


Todd

[Thresh]

I think what many of us forget to take into account is that Corps were rarely at full strength in some of the battles.

As an example, at Austerlitz, I Corps was 13K, III Corps was 7K, IV Corps was 23K, V Corps was 13K, 6K Guard, 5K grenadier, and 8K Cav Reserve.

Most of the Big Battles of the era seem to fall into the 6-10 Corps range. Borodino was 105K Russians vs. 124K French, thats 8-10 Russian Corps (Maybe up to 12 with the Cav taken into account) versus 6 French Corps in game terms.

About the only "Superstack" battle is Leipzig...

Todd