CleverDevils2 AAR

[gwheelock]

Britain's home army seems somewhat ... small - even by British standards

[gwheelock]

Spain; otoh; seems well defended

[gwheelock]

ah ... HERE'S the rest of the British army ... down in Africa & waiting to
stir up trouble no doubt.

[delatbabel]

While Napoleon & the Grande Armee seems to be eyeing Prussia ...
Could he be planning on the .... 4th COALITION <gasp>

Nah, the French will simply overrun Prussia, destroy the small remnant of the Prussian army that remains, take Poland, and then finish off Austria again. Hopefully Prussia will surrender early this time and get off lightly, while Austria deserves everything it gets for not supporting Prussia in the first war, and Russia will probably catch some of the same once the Polish army is at full strength.

I'd like to see this game continue as an object lesson to players who think that Austria or Prussia can just hold fire while the other one gets destroyed by France. It simply can't be done, doing so means you're out of the game completely unless France decides to let one of you back into the alliance. It's like playing chess, and as your first move handing your queen over to your opponent and saying "look after this for me, if you think I need it give it back to me", expecting that at some point in the game they just might.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

While Britain holds Sweden (and seems to have designs on Finland ... could this
be a breach of the evil compact between Britain & Russia )

Actually, no. It's to keep you from gaining control of it should Russia attack it. I haven't yet offered the idea that I could conquer it again for him, or even purchase "war rights" to it for some unspecified price.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
Nah, the French will simply overrun Prussia, destroy the small remnant of the Prussian army that remains, take Poland, and then finish off Austria again. Hopefully Prussia will surrender early this time and get off lightly, while Austria deserves everything it gets for not supporting Prussia in the first war, and Russia will probably catch some of the same once the Polish army is at full strength.

I'd like to see this game continue as an object lesson to players who think that Austria or Prussia can just hold fire while the other one gets destroyed by France. It simply can't be done, doing so means you're out of the game completely unless France decides to let one of you back into the alliance. It's like playing chess, and as your first move handing your queen over to your opponent and saying "look after this for me, if you think I need it give it back to me", expecting that at some point in the game they just might.

I have to defend both the Austrians and the Prussians in this matter, since I don't believe either of them post here.

First, the Prussians were used to games where EVERYBODY declared war before the game started. Face to face, this makes some sense. However, we didn't have any diplomacy prior to using the GAP, so he didn't realize that whatever nation he chose would be all alone in whatever war they chose.

The real lesson in that war isn't how the central powers can be split up (although, that's a corollary). The real lesson is that a nation/coalition getting beaten needs to surrender early. The Prussians waited until their entire army had been decimated before surrenduring.

Regarding the Austrians not joining them, I don't think they should have. Once split up from the Prussians, the Austrians needed help from someone else. The Prussians were never going to be able to help him, nor he them. Remember that the Prussians were largely defeated before Winter was even over. The Austrians, at best, could have occupied a couple of minors in northern Italy.

Now, understand something: Not all French players would have pulled off such a massive defeat of Prussia in so short a time. Nor would they have been able to pull it off against Austria. I've seen such wars last 12-18 months. That's plenty of time for the other to join back in. THIS France is ruthless. He knows how to win and doesn't hold anything back (similar to Napoleon himself, actually). He would not have been distracted by the Austrians picking off cripples in the South, even if they joined the war right away. He would first have continued clobbering the Prussians until they were rendered impotent. Only then would he turn to the Austrians with more than a token force.

As I see it, yes, it's important to try to build the Austria/Prussia coalition early. But, failing to do so is not obviously fatal. But, failing to do so, AND having the Spanish and the Turks actively join in against the coalition, that IS fatal. It's hard beating the French alone or with one of those allies. Having two allies is really hard to defeat, as we are witnessing. It requires excellent play and no small amount of luck.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

While Napoleon & the Grande Armee seems to be eyeing Prussia ...
Could he be planning on the .... 4th COALITION <gasp>

Nah, the French will simply overrun Prussia, destroy the small remnant of the Prussian army that remains, take Poland, and then finish off Austria again. Hopefully Prussia will surrender early this time and get off lightly, while Austria deserves everything it gets for not supporting Prussia in the first war, and Russia will probably catch some of the same once the Polish army is at full strength.

I'd like to see this game continue as an object lesson to players who think that Austria or Prussia can just hold fire while the other one gets destroyed by France. It simply can't be done, doing so means you're out of the game completely unless France decides to let one of you back into the alliance. It's like playing chess, and as your first move handing your queen over to your opponent and saying "look after this for me, if you think I need it give it back to me", expecting that at some point in the game they just might.

Yes; Prussia is in my target sites; since he only has about 50-60 guys; I don't expect him to take very long.

After Prussia comes Russia - not Austria. Russia is still at war with me and with my Turkish ally & I
need to resolve that before the Austrians come 'round again. I am to let Prussia off easily when it comes
to his army; but I NEED an unconditional where I can get Silesia, Masovia & Posen so that I can get
access to Russia.

I'm not sure how much Austria could have done to support Prussia. With the winter movement rules;
Austria couldn't reach most of my stuff before March & by that time; I had killed almost 1/2 of Prussia's
army. (I think that Prussia was too used to playing vs the AI ... and >I< do NOT play like the AI)

[NeverMan]

Delatbabel:

I totally agree that the Germans need to stick together, I really don't think they can survive otherwise. Since I picked up this game very late in the year I have no idea what happened to Prussia or why no one bothered to help him, instead just letting France rip right through him.

Jimmer:

I disagree. I don't think that it's very hard for even the novice French player to rip through Prussia by itself, with everyone just standing around watching. AND, as I recall didn't you guys say there was a BUG in the code that made it so Prussia couldn't surrender, or something like that?

Guy:

There will be no COALITION. Apparently few actually want to win and don't mind seeing you overrun the Germans time and time again, even your biggest nemesis (GB) sat by and watched you trounce the Au without giving any army support. I'm not sure Prussia's heart is still in the game and he does not look ready for war. I can't imagine an unconditional being too difficult to get from him (probably fairly easily actually since it doesn't look like he has totally rebuilt his army and it will, again, be him alone). I also am not sure that the Turks will last long enough for you to help him.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I disagree. I don't think that it's very hard for even the novice French player to rip through Prussia by itself, with everyone just standing around watching. AND, as I recall didn't you guys say there was a BUG in the code that made it so Prussia couldn't surrender, or something like that?

While you are partly correct, you are missing the major point: That it wouldn't have mattered much if the Austrians joined in. As gwheelock said, he had half the Prussian army dead by March, before anybody else (besides me) could have even moved into his territory. He wasn't about to get distracted by the Austrians until the Prussians are 80% gone.

The bug only delayed the surrender by one month (July vs. June). Further, neither side did any hostile actions during that month, as they had negotiated the surrender in the June diplo phase. France had to exit Berlin before Prussia could surrender.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Delatbabel:

I totally agree that the Germans need to stick together, I really don't think they can survive otherwise. Since I picked up this game very late in the year I have no idea what happened to Prussia or why no one bothered to help him, instead just letting France rip right through him.

Nobody could. He declared war on France pre-game, and his army was half gone by the end of February. Once it was clear that he was dead, Russia (the former Tsar) decided it wasn't worth trying to help at that time. I actually agree with him, in hindsight. All he could offer the Prussians was about 20 troops and a leader, and that was not going to be enough. 70 die almost as quickly as 50 do, although a halfway decent leader might have helped.

If BOTH the Russians and the Austrians had joined in in March (the first legitimate opportunity), things might have been different. But, they didn't.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Apparently few actually want to win ...

Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Apparently few actually want to win ...

Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.

I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


Guy:

There will be no COALITION. Apparently few actually want to win and don't mind seeing you overrun the Germans time and time again, even your biggest nemesis (GB) sat by and watched you trounce the Au without giving any army support. I'm not sure Prussia's heart is still in the game and he does not look ready for war. I can't imagine an unconditional being too difficult to get from him (probably fairly easily actually since it doesn't look like he has totally rebuilt his army and it will, again, be him alone). I also am not sure that the Turks will last long enough for you to help him.

I can go after Prussia starting in Feb 1807. I don't expect him to last
much past March or April (even if he is refusing to surrender again; his
army should be dead by then & it doesn't take much to simply occupy
his capitols while moving the main army thru.)

I expect the Turks to easily be around until then. You cant even REACH him
(or him to YOU) during winter - remember the movement restrictions.

You guys may have time for 1 or 2 big battles (less if he simply backs up
into Turkey & makes you chase him) before I can get thru
Prussia; but thats about it - & thats not enough to knock out the Turks
when he starts with a full feudal army (it takes more than 2 battles to
eat thru all those troops)

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Apparently few actually want to win ...

Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.

I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.

The first player to cross their goal is the big, 1st place winner. At that point;
everyone else takes their VP's & add in their manpower points. Anyone who
then crosses THEIR goal is also a winner (2nd, 3rd; etc - rank is determined by
the percentage that they exceed their goal). Conceivably EVERYBODY could
be a winner if its a close game. The reason for this is so that allies have
less reason to backstab one another.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Jimmer



Actually, I hope to win if it goes the whole game. Remember: We're playing with the old end-of-game rules. More than one player can win.

I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.

The first player to cross their goal is the big, 1st place winner. At that point;
everyone else takes their VP's & add in their manpower points. Anyone who
then crosses THEIR goal is also a winner (2nd, 3rd; etc - rank is determined by
the percentage that they exceed their goal). Conceivably EVERYBODY could
be a winner if its a close game. The reason for this is so that allies have
less reason to backstab one another.

This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Also, the same winter movement limitations apply to you. None of that matters since we all already knew who the winner is from the start of the game (when Pr DOWd Fr for no good reason and without ANY help at all, it was pretty much over at that point).

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I seem to have forgotten about those, and am still uncertain of what they are, please refresh me.

The game can end when one player crosses the boundary to his goal, if he declares the game over.

Once the game IS declared over, then all of the other nations have their manpower totals added into their VP score. Usually, this will cause 1-4 other players to also be winners. Here's the original rule:

8.1.3.2.3 The Final Victory Points Step: During a Victory Points Step when the announced total victory points of a major power has matched or exceeded that major power's victory level or, if the final month that will be played has been concluded, during the final Victory Points Step of the game, manpower levels are counted for additional victory points.

8.1.3.2.3.1: Each major power counts its total currently controlled manpower values in controlled home nation provinces, controlled ceded provinces of other home nations and conquered minor countries (none of the component territories of the new political combinations used in options 11.1-11.6 count as conquered). Controlled minor free states and/or controlled provinces or minor countries with capitals currently occupied by an enemy are not counted.

8.1.3.2.3.2: These manpower values are added as extra victory points to the major power's victory point totals for determining a winner or winners.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Are we supposed to reject the rules (of EiA, which you keep touting as superior) because you don't like them?

It seems to me that the game was intended to be played heartily by all, and that more than one should win as a reward for playing hard.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Are we supposed to reject the rules (of EiA, which you keep touting as superior) because you don't like them?

It seems to me that the game was intended to be played heartily by all, and that more than one should win as a reward for playing hard.

I'm not touting anything. IMO = In my OPINION. I'm saying that even if I "won" by these rules it would be a hollow victory.

[gwheelock]

Ok; here is the latest from Jan 1807.
&nbsp;
France DOWs Prussia.
Britain & Austria DOW Turkey.
(This is an attempt to knock Turkey out of the Russian war before France
can finish off Prussia & come after the Russian army that retreated home
from the Baltic.&nbsp; They have until Feb 1808 to do so.&nbsp; At that point
France can DOW Austria again.)
&nbsp;

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is really pointless IMO, since everyone knows who the real winner is. I mean, everyone is grown up. This method is like the special olympics of EiA, it's just not needed with adults.

This is just IMO and not meant to be offensive. Even if I "won" (which I won't, since I kind of knew this after I took over), I would still know who the "real" winner is, so why bother?

Are we supposed to reject the rules (of EiA, which you keep touting as superior) because you don't like them?

It seems to me that the game was intended to be played heartily by all, and that more than one should win as a reward for playing hard.

I'm not touting anything. IMO = In my OPINION. I'm saying that even if I "won" by these rules it would be a hollow victory.

Actually these rules go to the point that most victories in this game are PARTNERSHIP victories. I suspect that if
I win & TURKEY takes 2nd under these rules that he would not consider it a hollow victory; since he would deserve
some of the acclaim as well.