Pre January 1805 reinforcements

[easterner]

(Sorry about my tone. I was responding in kind.)

Actually your tone was better than mine, so I'll give you 1 point for that.

WW2 the Allies and German's were equally unready for war 9/39. The panzers were packed with Mk I trainers and the West Wall was held by a passing troop of HJ's and three girls picking flowers. in 5/40 the Allies were fully ready for war, 1918 style. They were fighting in Norway at Narvik and winning. The Kriegsmarine surface fleet was resting quietly on the bottom or was in port for repairs. The U-boats were steaming home beaten after finding out "toink" torpedoes don't get it done.

As 1805 started the new La Grande Armee was readying for Invasion of Britain, 1805 events would force it east.

The Brits meanwhile were busy retaking all the territories that they just finished giving back to France in '02. The problem is more the EiA economic model. No country (except Turkey which can't) can churn out troops at EiA rates long term. The conquered minors make nations too powerful. But nothing built for 6 months is nonsense.

The Conq minors should contribute $$$ only no MP, forced conscripts runaway and desert in large numbers. In additon to current Minor Corps, Minor Divisions should be added. while treated as a Corps in all things the are tiny (3-1) but can be recruited from any Corpsless free state. So Free States produce troops, CONQ produce $$$$.

Amother item needed is Random Events. Famines, bad harvests, manpower shortages, revolts, American persnickety-ness, Barbary raids, Tribute to make them go away, leader death (natural) New Viziers, good harvests, Ultra bad weather (lose movement point) horse shortage, timber shortage (ship building).

Many folks nostalgically want EiA restored to original. I do not, for all its greatness it is in many ways bland and colorless, worse many flavor items were lost usually from pbem needs. So no Spanish Deguello, no Turkish "NO PRISONERS," no militia promotion. I don't like pre-picked surrender terms, interception orders or Support Ally choices.

I use fancy Nickmart counters and sneered at Soapyfrogs old styles. (Till I saw his screenprint, I may reconsider them. The contrast on map looked excellent)

I love new map, love little free states GARR, Don't mind naval change (just the mechanics), the original games naval OB was correct for all 50 gun SOL, new naval OB is wrong unless 50 gunners are factored out???? I don't like the OB. I checked Harry's OB years ago as I had 1805 OB, it matched perfectly, we must have owned same book.

[Jimmer]

Well, my main point is that the total amount of factors each nation has should be kept the same, whether adding a pre-game phase or not. I can't remember the exact numbers, but for reference, let's say GB has
 
20i
1g
4c
(ignore ships)
 
She also earns quarterly (before conquering anything new) 51 money and 16 manpower, plus trade.
 
For me to agree with the concept, $27 (and trade) and 8 infantry should be removed from her starting forces, and then she be allowed to place them in January, March, May, and/or June, as approriate. So, she would start the game with 12i, 1g, 4c, and only some amount of money less than $24.
 
(Please forgive the errant use of the dollar sign; my keyboard doesn't have a pound symbol. It's not an attempt to "make the world American.")

[DCWhitworth]

One thing that no one has mentioned that I would really like to see addressed is that no nation has any corps counters available in the first three months. That serioulsy reduces your flexibility.

One of the problems with having a pre-game economic phase is that there are no militia present at start. As France I would put no garrisons out, build all militia and have then turn up and garrison everywhere, then I would take my large Grandee Armee and bulging treasury and wage winter war on Prussia.

[pzgndr]

These are good points. While I like the idea of an optional econ phase, it looks like there should be a number of restrictions - no minors, no trade, no lending, no militia? Being able to buy some corps counters and have a few modest reinforcements in the pipeline might be nice. But maybe the restrictions would make this more trouble than it's worth?

Maybe an optional reinforcements variant could be introduced? Say an MP could buy 10i or 2c if there were an econ phase. The game could randomly add say 1-5i and 0-1c (half max) and maybe a corps counter to the at-start reinforcement track. Something simple, to add a little suspense to the standard setups and opening moves.

[easterner]

And what happens when Br lands and burns a Fleet or 5 as Morale 2 militia don't fight off 4.5 INF too well? Now you have to race troops back to coast, then comes March and Pr army grows, yours doesn't and in non-AI you may have to deal with Au & Rs come March too.

[easterner]

I completely disagree, limits are better. However if limits are impossible some reduction as you posit may need doing, as after 1806 armies grow too fast as it is, why speed that up? Or as another suggested some pre-set reinforcements. The idea being get rid of the 6-mo dead zone of no Reinf.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: easterner
And what happens when Br lands and burns a Fleet or 5 as Morale 2 militia don't fight off 4.5 INF too well? Now you have to race troops back to coast, then comes March and Pr army grows, yours doesn't and in non-AI you may have to deal with Au & Rs come March too.

Sorry, I didn't want to go into too much detail and waffle on for too long. I would most likely garrison major fleet bases with regulars.

Prussia will build what, 8 infantry ? Hardly going to make a huge difference and if I've freed up infantry garrisons by using militia then I will effectively have had my infantry reinforcement in January *plus* freedom to act and strike in winter because I've got lots of money.

If you are likely to be facing Austria, Prussia and Russia the optimal approach for France is to strike at once and try and knock one of them (Prussia is the best choice) out before the others can help them. Furthermore if you rush troops back to face a British incursion you are going to diminish your chances of beating the 'Grand Alliance', the war will be decided in Germany not by the French fleet.

[iamspamus]

This was a cumulation of many HFJ posts. Getting troops every month, adding more types of ships, etc. So, yes, it was changing the "core" game. And I disagree with your idea of "classic eia" being the corp. Nope. The "core" ideas of the game are the how the phases interact, dominance, special country benefits, movement rates, supplying, map structure, peace times and such. Any of these can be modified, without changing the core or destroying the game. Thus you could take "core" ideas and put them in any time that fits that style of war, from probably 1700ish to RRs in mid 1830s. This includes any variants, changes or even re-writes, such as EIH.

However, when you start changing the core, it no longer becomes EIA or anything like it. Getting infantry in every turn is not EIA, for one example. See his other posts for others.

As I've said in the past, I LOVE chrome. To some extent, the more the better. This is modified by a) not changing the game too much, b) historical accuaracy and c) playability. B and C should be in constant conflict. See World in Flames.

So, in this case, you are right, he wasn't changing the core of the game. But this was the culmination of several months of wanting to change almost every single aspect of the game core.

As I said on this subject, I don't know that any change is needed. I'd be all for this being an optional. It shouldn't be hard to implement starting during an econ phase first, I'd guess.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

This per se was not the "balance of power" issue, but HFJ's desire to change virtually everything about the game... Optionals, chrome, etc. those are fine.

I agree. I'm not sure if HFJ was actually proposing to change the core game rather than suggest an option. The core game should be classic EiA rules by default except where Marshall simply cannot implement all of the interactive actions and such, and all other deviations should be game options. This should be generally understood by everyone.

An easier way to do this would be to maybe start the scenario in December 1804. This would autotrigger an eco phase.

Could you get the game to start at just the economic phase? With the Editor we should be able to easily change the start date ourselves but this would include all of the other December 1804 phases and that may not be desired. A game option to start at the previous economic phase would be preferable?

[iamspamus]

Well, I don't think that it's a problem anyway. You wage cheapy war in the beginning or pay the cost...

Also, since winter fighting rarely happened, once again I have little problem with that. I mean there was Jena-Auerstadt that was fought in snow, but other than that, I can't think of any. Moscow skirmishes were fought as La Grande Armee retreated, but most would admit that this was a special occasion.

So, no problem with it happening (it is a game after all), but doing an extra phase to facilitate fighting in the first winter (when there was no fighting) just seems unnecessary to me.

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

One thing that no one has mentioned that I would really like to see addressed is that no nation has any corps counters available in the first three months. That serioulsy reduces your flexibility.

One of the problems with having a pre-game economic phase is that there are no militia present at start. As France I would put no garrisons out, build all militia and have then turn up and garrison everywhere, then I would take my large Grandee Armee and bulging treasury and wage winter war on Prussia.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: easterner

(Sorry about my tone. I was responding in kind.)

Actually your tone was better than mine, so I'll give you 1 point for that.

I WIN! I WIN! This is soccer after all...

The Brits meanwhile were busy retaking all the territories that they just finished giving back to France in '02. The problem is more the EiA economic model. No country (except Turkey which can't) can churn out troops at EiA rates long term. The conquered minors make nations too powerful. But nothing built for 6 months is nonsense.

OK. I don't have a problem with it. I've been Russia down to one province. Sure didn't see many troops for a while.

Amother item needed is Random Events. Famines, bad harvests, manpower shortages, revolts, American persnickety-ness, Barbary raids, Tribute to make them go away, leader death (natural) New Viziers, good harvests, Ultra bad weather (lose movement point) horse shortage, timber shortage (ship building).

I have one of these. I'll try to dig it up. I also like some of the variants that I played throughout the years.

Many folks nostalgically want EiA restored to original. I do not, for all its greatness it is in many ways bland and colorless, worse many flavor items were lost usually from pbem needs. So no Spanish Deguello, no Turkish "NO PRISONERS," no militia promotion. I don't like pre-picked surrender terms, interception orders or Support Ally choices.

I use fancy Nickmart counters and sneered at Soapyfrogs old styles. (Till I saw his screenprint, I may reconsider them. The contrast on map looked excellent)

I love new map, love little free states GARR, Don't mind naval change (just the mechanics), the original games naval OB was correct for all 50 gun SOL, new naval OB is wrong unless 50 gunners are factored out???? I don't like the OB. I checked Harry's OB years ago as I had 1805 OB, it matched perfectly, we must have owned same book.

I concur with this statement. I wish it would have made it to EIH 5.0 rather than 3.0, but hey, what can ya do? I don't think that we are too far off. This issue is just not a big deal for me. Maybe because I usually don't play France...I kill them. [:D]

[iamspamus]

My difficulty is that these are difficult. You don't get the "bang for the buck". You will have a page of rules for ONE EVENT that happens. Why? If you think that the game needs the ability for more flexibility, just use the mechanism in the game (ie. the actual econ phase). Why make a special rule for this?

Oh, and easterner, it's not 6 months, it's 4, unless you're not buying mil.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

These are good points. While I like the idea of an optional econ phase, it looks like there should be a number of restrictions - no minors, no trade, no lending, no militia? Being able to buy some corps counters and have a few modest reinforcements in the pipeline might be nice. But maybe the restrictions would make this more trouble than it's worth?

Maybe an optional reinforcements variant could be introduced? Say an MP could buy 10i or 2c if there were an econ phase. The game could randomly add say 1-5i and 0-1c (half max) and maybe a corps counter to the at-start reinforcement track. Something simple, to add a little suspense to the standard setups and opening moves.

[borner]

an Dec 1804 varriant would be great. Most groupls I played with over the years started the game with an eco phase. Most times there was a lot of MIL in garrisons around the map and money for winter operations. I guess this would be good for everyone but Prussia... no wonder I always bid "1" for that country!!!!!

[pzgndr]

just use the mechanism in the game (ie. the actual econ phase). Why make a special rule for this?

I tend to agree. It should be easiest for Marshall to simply introduce a game option to start with an econ phase, with no special rules. Players can always adopt house rules and agree not to buy militia or minors or whatever.

[easterner]

I don't count militia!!!!!


Dec Econ

If Game began 12/04 with Diplo then starting money would need be reduced to approx $5 each to avoid heavy activity in Dec. Jan $$$ would be determined by 12/04 production.

If game begins with 12/04 Prod then money starts at 0.00 for all, and new $$$ is all you get.

In my pre-econ you produced on your base i.e. if 60/25 was your countries base MP/$$ you spent that, only that & any MP/$$$ left over was lost. But that is probably too difficult to program a 1x Econ phase.

[NeverMan]

If implemented, this HAS to be an option.

[easterner]

Yes it would.

[iamspamus]

OMG ... ... sputter ... gasp. Neverman and I FINALLY agreed on something.

Have the stars aligned?

Maybe I should buy a lottery ticket...

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

If implemented, this HAS to be an option.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

OMG ... ... sputter ... gasp. Neverman and I FINALLY agreed on something.

Have the stars aligned?

Maybe I should buy a lottery ticket...

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

If implemented, this HAS to be an option.

Don't worry it happens... I'll try not to make a habit of it.

[Jimmer]

By the way, people should think long and hard about using this option (if created). It's clear from the original game design that wars between major powers shouldn't happen very early in the game, although the game allows for that. They had a reason for not having a pre-game econ phase: To keep wars from starting right away. By changing it, you would be creating a different start-of-game situation that allows for much earlier MP wars.

[easterner]

If the Allies don't smack France early, they may not get another chance. I don't ever recall fighting in Sp. & Russ simultaneously as Fr.