Crete Manpower Issue

[Mardonius]

Hello Folks:

The original 1.00 version of EIANW game had a Turkish Income of 25/17. I made a suggestion to Richard De La Parra (Mondadman) that the MP for Crete be reduced to 1/0 from 1/1 to allow for France/Austria or another landward power to force Turkey to surrender.

Marshall implemented this change, as requested. However, rather than switch the MP to another territory (e.g. Anatolia, Thrace) the MP now has gone away and Turkey has an income of 25/16.

Why do I bring this up now? Well, I just loaded patch 1.03 and it took away my Cretan MP. OK, this may be minor to 99.5% of the readers out there but to a budding Grand Vizier it is important…[:(]

In all seriousness, Turkey has been reduced in manpower by 5 or 6 percent… and there has been no corresponding change in VP totals.

I would suggest that, perhaps, the missing 1 MP be reallocated to a landward polity within Turkey… maybe Anatolia or Thrace…

Best
Mardonius

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Folks:

The original 1.00 version of EIANW game had a Turkish Income of 25/17. I made a suggestion to Richard De La Parra (Mondadman) that the MP for Crete be reduced to 1/0 from 1/1 to allow for France/Austria or another landward power to force Turkey to surrender.

Marshall implemented this change, as requested. However, rather than switch the MP to another territory (e.g. Anatolia, Thrace) the MP now has gone away and Turkey has an income of 25/16.

Why do I bring this up now? Well, I just loaded patch 1.03 and it took away my Cretan MP. OK, this may be minor to 99.5% of the readers out there but to a budding Grand Vizier it is important…[:(]

In all seriousness, Turkey has been reduced in manpower by 5 or 6 percent… and there has been no corresponding change in VP totals.

I would suggest that, perhaps, the missing 1 MP be reallocated to a landward polity within Turkey… maybe Anatolia or Thrace…

Best
Mardonius

Ouch, so i have to keep using patch 1.02 when i play Turkey ?

Regards
Bresh

[yammahoper]

Now that's funny.

yamma

[DCWhitworth]

To be honest I think Turkey gets a good deal in EiANW. If I remember correctly in EiA they are 23 / 12 money and manpower so they're well up on that. Also the Janissary corps are considerably better and the minor country diplomacy rules mean that Turkey's ambitions in North Africa are much easier to realise.

[Mardonius]

DCWhitworth:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

To be honest I think Turkey gets a good deal in EiANW. If I remember correctly in EiA they are 23 / 12 money and manpower so they're well up on that. Also the Janissary corps are considerably better and the minor country diplomacy rules mean that Turkey's ambitions in North Africa are much easier to realise.

Not sure I agree with all that say, particularly about North Africa. Moreover, Turkey has considerable weaknesses and vulnerabilities in this game EiA NW that it does not have in EIA... I am not going to point these out to you here as -- in Full Disclosure -- you are playing France in our game. [:)] You are correct, however, that things have changed between EiA and EiANW. That should not matter. The game was balanced -- or should have been and I believe it was -- in the release by giving each power relative strengths and weaknesses. If one changes the game, then that balanced should be maintained.

I will give you two that others can not capitalize on just to point out the shortcomings of your approach: Each DoW now costs 4 pp vice 3 PP. It is a lot harder for a low morale army like Turkey to recoup that PP cost. France, in particular, can generate PP quite readily. This extra cost makes it a lot harder for Turkey to gain PP. There are a lot of others, too. What happened to Turkey's ability to control the Black Sea trade and garner extra income thereby?

best
Mardonius