That is a concept that is used in many games as "overrun". In World in Flames for example if you get 10:1 odds then it is an automatic victory, the counter is removed and you pay double movement point cost for moving into the area. Not sure if it would apply to EiA.
The thing with the 5:1 rule (and the depot supply limit to 4 corps) is that it forces the game into a more mobile warfare style. It is really something that you must experience and that does not come from reading the rule.
1.03 status update for June 17th!
Moderator: MOD_EIA
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: baboune
That is a concept that is used in many games as "overrun". In World in Flames for example if you get 10:1 odds then it is an automatic victory, the counter is removed and you pay double movement point cost for moving into the area. Not sure if it would apply to EiA.
The thing with the 5:1 rule (and the depot supply limit to 4 corps) is that it forces the game into a more mobile warfare style. It is really something that you must experience and that does not come from reading the rule.
The 4 corps supply rule is really to French advantage, since allied supply is not gonna happen. So till that is fixed i would not ask for this.
Also the reduced size of Russian prime corps is something needed to take into account when disgussion this rule.
Currently it seems to me France has gained most advantages so far in eianw, due to to lack of combined movement and allied supply, so no reason to help France more.
Regards
Bresh
-
von altair
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:22 pm
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
I am a big fun of Empires in Arms board game. I have been waiting and waiting that I can play that game with my PC. Finally it came in! But I decided to wait how it goes. Good for me I didin't buy that game after looking at these forums and saw how it is still in beta phase.
I really belive that 47.99e is too much from unfinished beta version. How about release the game as "Beta version of Empires at Arms for 9.99e". Then after a year or something when it is really ready for release, it can be sold with a full price.
I hate people releasing games for the money, no matter are they playable or no. This is one of those which goes too far in it. This is hard talk, I know, but after months of release it really should be finished and out of beta phase.
I really belive that 47.99e is too much from unfinished beta version. How about release the game as "Beta version of Empires at Arms for 9.99e". Then after a year or something when it is really ready for release, it can be sold with a full price.
I hate people releasing games for the money, no matter are they playable or no. This is one of those which goes too far in it. This is hard talk, I know, but after months of release it really should be finished and out of beta phase.
"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"
"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
-Axel Oxenstierna
"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
-Axel Oxenstierna
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: delatbabel
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'm not sure what kind of schools they went to but I went to a public school and yes, we were indeed taught the War of 1812. Was it covered as much as WWII? No. Should it have been? Probably not.
ALSO, the USA did not lose the War of 1812. Don't believe me? Go read and do research and ask yourself who you think won? All in all, it was a stalemate. If the USA had indeed lost, then some of New England would now belong to the English, or at least present day Canada.
No, it was a stalemate, although since the British were eventually driven from North America you could, historically speaking, make a case for the USA.
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
Sorry, doubled post.
-
Soapy Frog
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:33 am
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
Canada won the war of 1812, everyone knows that 
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
Canada won the war of 1812, everyone knows that
LOL. I have heard that; however, I find it a difficult argument since Canada was not yet around.
-
timewalker03
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 11:32 pm
- Location: Omaha, NE
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
In my experience, the game was not played in a historic fashion. This game is just a representation of a period in history and the warfare that ensued. It is fun to me because not only does it allow for a strategic campaign it also forces you into a logistical campaign which may be the most accurate to the times although in reality foraging was a big portion of feeding any army even after canned food was introduced. What I have learned about the 4 corps supply rule is it seperarted the men from the boys who played the game. The people who complained the most about it like big stack large factor warfare and we saw mostly Charles or Blucher vs Napoleon in these games.
With the 4 corps supply rule it forced people to actually have to take a tactical view of the game and we saw more reinforcing during battles and few big stack battles. It also made Mack, Davout, Massena, Holenloe (can't remember how to spell it) and other commanders more of factor in the games other than for minor skirmishes. Bad players were exposed by this rule and shyed away from our game group because of it. We called the rule "the Moron Detection Rule". Only bad, moronic players ever sided against the rule in our groups.
This game has many problems the supply rule being one of the bigger ones. The major feature of this game is PBEM and is what it really is all about. The PBEM is very slow, not by design, but because people are slow. I am in two games currently and dropped from a third because it restarted 3 times. I am Turkey in one and Austria in the Other. I started the one as Turkey in February and we just reached May 1805 after 1 restart. To me the PBEM feature is pretty lame as in the past I have played in Play by Mail and we went 3 times as fast as this even waiting for the mail to come. Hopefully TCP/IP or a hybrid of some fashion will come sooner than later. That is my biggest hope for this game right now.
With the 4 corps supply rule it forced people to actually have to take a tactical view of the game and we saw more reinforcing during battles and few big stack battles. It also made Mack, Davout, Massena, Holenloe (can't remember how to spell it) and other commanders more of factor in the games other than for minor skirmishes. Bad players were exposed by this rule and shyed away from our game group because of it. We called the rule "the Moron Detection Rule". Only bad, moronic players ever sided against the rule in our groups.
This game has many problems the supply rule being one of the bigger ones. The major feature of this game is PBEM and is what it really is all about. The PBEM is very slow, not by design, but because people are slow. I am in two games currently and dropped from a third because it restarted 3 times. I am Turkey in one and Austria in the Other. I started the one as Turkey in February and we just reached May 1805 after 1 restart. To me the PBEM feature is pretty lame as in the past I have played in Play by Mail and we went 3 times as fast as this even waiting for the mail to come. Hopefully TCP/IP or a hybrid of some fashion will come sooner than later. That is my biggest hope for this game right now.
-
Soapy Frog
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:33 am
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
At the risk of a major derailment, Canada was "around", as a British colony, and successfully defended it's borders from American invasion (with help from the redcoats of course!), and so from Canadian persepective it was indeed a victory, one that provided the seed of a Canadian national identity I might add.
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
At the risk of a major derailment, Canada was "around", as a British colony, and successfully defended it's borders from American invasion (with help from the redcoats of course!), and so from Canadian persepective it was indeed a victory, one that provided the seed of a Canadian national identity I might add.
LOL, I hear ya. I guess I just feel that a colony doesn't make a nation (it takes a revolutionary colony, or lots of them
). If you look at it from that perspective than ok; however, I think that's a slightly simplistic view of the war.RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
1. War of 1812 was indeed a stalemate but given the fact that Canadian Militia beat off the USA's entire army at a population disadvantage of something like 10:1 it was clear strategic victory for Canada. The USA (who started the war after all) didn't get any territorial gains out of it like they had hoped. That being said, the British pretty much blew the rest of the war and didn't get anything they wanted either.
However, one thing that I like to taunt the Americans about is "who burned whose White House to the ground"? You know it!
Of course, that was in revenge for the burning of York by the Americans if I recall correctly...
2. The 5:1 and 4/depot rules should not be hard to code (as compared with IP play). Let's end the debate and get them in the queue for updates and be done with the arguing back and forth about it.
Oh and Todd - while I agree that 1 MIL stopping a gigantic army led by Napoleon is a bit ahistoric, I think moving 4 areas at will by the French without losses (either supplied or foraging in 6 areas) is completely ahistoric too. However, given that Napoleon wouldn't necessarily know that it was only 1 MIL, and given the inability to have pickets and other devices for slowing down corps movement, I think the 5:1 rule is a good compromise.
Ken
However, one thing that I like to taunt the Americans about is "who burned whose White House to the ground"? You know it!
Of course, that was in revenge for the burning of York by the Americans if I recall correctly...
2. The 5:1 and 4/depot rules should not be hard to code (as compared with IP play). Let's end the debate and get them in the queue for updates and be done with the arguing back and forth about it.
Oh and Todd - while I agree that 1 MIL stopping a gigantic army led by Napoleon is a bit ahistoric, I think moving 4 areas at will by the French without losses (either supplied or foraging in 6 areas) is completely ahistoric too. However, given that Napoleon wouldn't necessarily know that it was only 1 MIL, and given the inability to have pickets and other devices for slowing down corps movement, I think the 5:1 rule is a good compromise.
Ken
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: KenClark
1. War of 1812 was indeed a stalemate but given the fact that Canadian Militia beat off the USA's entire army at a population disadvantage of something like 10:1 it was clear strategic victory for Canada. The USA (who started the war after all) didn't get any territorial gains out of it like they had hoped. That being said, the British pretty much blew the rest of the war and didn't get anything they wanted either.
Ken
Yeah, the Canadian Militia........oh, yeah, and all those British guys/money/weapons. History is a funny thing, I guess sometimes it depends on whose eyes you look through.
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
Yes, all 350 of the British Regulars made a huge difference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
-
Soapy Frog
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:33 am
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
Ken exaggerates to make a point; We Won. Suck it, Yankee!! 
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
Ken exaggerates to make a point; We Won. Suck it, Yankee!!
LOL, yes he does, exaggerate that is, tremendously.
I don't have to suck it, heh. Your not my pal buddy.
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
Ken,
Given that the time frame for each turn is a month, I have to say that if it took any competent General more than a couple of days to realize he was facing just 1,000 men, something is deficient with the general.
I agree that the 5:1 rule has some validity, but when the numbers involved become to lopsided, they have to be addressed.
Todd
Given that the time frame for each turn is a month, I have to say that if it took any competent General more than a couple of days to realize he was facing just 1,000 men, something is deficient with the general.
I agree that the 5:1 rule has some validity, but when the numbers involved become to lopsided, they have to be addressed.
Todd
-
Soapy Frog
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:33 am
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
There are many ways to rationalize why screening corps work the way they do, the most important thing though is that the rule works, and it produces a better, more tactical game.
Think of it as a "presence of the enemy" fog of war-like rule. You scouts seek the enemy main body but must first contend with picket forces. Yes the rational does not work in all cases but such is the nature of a relatively high level strategic game where many aspects are abstracted.
Think of it as a "presence of the enemy" fog of war-like rule. You scouts seek the enemy main body but must first contend with picket forces. Yes the rational does not work in all cases but such is the nature of a relatively high level strategic game where many aspects are abstracted.
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
Ken exaggerates to make a point; We Won. Suck it, Yankee!!
LOL, yes he does, exaggerate that is, tremendously.
I don't have to suck it, heh. Your not my pal buddy.
Hey I cited my source for 350 regulars for the support of the initial invasion of Canada, that wasn't an exaggeration at all. Take a look at the wikipedia entries for the interesting perspectives of who really won.
The US did defeat an invasion of New Orleans after the war was technically over (but before anyone there knew about it), which they rightly consider a victory, and did have a number of successes in holding Lake Erie and Lake Champlain navally.
Canadians however consider the defeat of the US invasion of Canada to be a major victory, which is also true.
Let's all now turn back to bashing the AI, shall we?
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
Soapy,
1 factor in a Corps against 127 factors (or 75, or 50, or 30) does not constitute a screening force IMO. It constitutes a speed bump the lead elements of the column sweep to the side. This does tend to slow the pace of the operations down, but stop them completely?
Todd
1 factor in a Corps against 127 factors (or 75, or 50, or 30) does not constitute a screening force IMO. It constitutes a speed bump the lead elements of the column sweep to the side. This does tend to slow the pace of the operations down, but stop them completely?
Todd
RE: 1.03 status update for June 17th!
ORIGINAL: KenClark
ORIGINAL: NeverMan
ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
Ken exaggerates to make a point; We Won. Suck it, Yankee!!
LOL, yes he does, exaggerate that is, tremendously.
I don't have to suck it, heh. Your not my pal buddy.
Hey I cited my source for 350 regulars for the support of the initial invasion of Canada, that wasn't an exaggeration at all. Take a look at the wikipedia entries for the interesting perspectives of who really won.
The US did defeat an invasion of New Orleans after the war was technically over (but before anyone there knew about it), which they rightly consider a victory, and did have a number of successes in holding Lake Erie and Lake Champlain navally.
Canadians however consider the defeat of the US invasion of Canada to be a major victory, which is also true.
Let's all now turn back to bashing the AI, shall we?
Sure thing. Although just note: 1. initial invasion! 2. Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable refernce, not that's it's wrong in this case, I'm just saying.
Yes, the AI has a long way to go. I played GB, had all of France's leaders (and I mean ALL) and had all of Prussia's leaders and all I wanted was conditionals and I couldnt' get it. Again, the AI is too concerned with taking minor by attacking them with 1 corps at a time. The AI is in fact, not that much fun to play against right now.