If you add one optional rule, this is the best...

[Mardonius]

Hello Marshall!!!!

This one is a fantastic one to add, in my opinion.

12.3.1 SUPPLY LIMITS PER DEPOT: Each individual depot that is a supply source source or part of a valid supply chain may only be used to supply a maximum of four corps and/or besieged garrisons.

Changes the entire dynamic of the game by minimizing the monster stack options, thereby making all those secondary leaders of critical importance. Makes those smaller cav corps has some added value too as they can move with them main army and forage, in many instances with their extra moves...

Be forewarned... makes the French even more dominant in individual battles but it does force them to fight on many fronts, which if done properly will overwhelm them... If done improperly, they can achieve localized superiority everywhere.

best
Mardonius

[NeverMan]

Our group always played with this rule.

[Skanvak]

anyway I am for all option of original game offered. So I vote for this one as option.

[DCWhitworth]

In principle it's great, in reality it causes serious issues. It would mean that Russia can in effect only be conquered by a large cooperative effort - stretching a supply line from Warsaw to Moscow is tough now, never mind that under this rule you can only get there with 4 corps.

Furthermore given that since EiANW has chosen to only allow a nation to supply its own (or loaned) units it will become impossible to create a large offensive force at distance, because everyone in an attacking stack has to be supplied by the same nation.

Also EiANW has chosen to give everyone seven depots rather than the numbers in the board game, again making this rule even tougher.

In fact this would make Great Britain even stronger since they could sea/invasion supply relatively easily, they already get plenty of benefits under EiANW compared with the board game.

[bresh]

I agree with David.

He listed the same reasons i would have pointed out, you cant use allied depots, some nations have less Depots than they do in OOB-eia.

It would only favor France and maybe GB.

Regards
Bresh

[MarshallEllis]

I had looked at this in the past and part of the problem is tracking each source's corps. Some scenarios (depot branching to 2 possible sources) are even more difficult to code! Not impossible but yuuuuck! Thats's just from the coding aspect. I myself never played this rule because it was SOOOOO difficult to track manually.

[itmc09]

Probably the easyest way to code a rule like that in EiANW would be to limit the number of Corps that can receive depot supply in each area for example to 4+the forage value of the area. So for example in an area with forage value 6 the maximum would be 10 Corps while if the forage value is 1 the maximum would be 5 Corps. In this case conquering Russia would not be prohibitive but more expensive.

I know that it always a danger to add new untested rule in a complex game like EiA but a rule similar to this, added as a option, may help solving the issue of monster stacks.

[DCWhitworth]

Monster stacks are probably better dealt with through leaders tactical maximum ratings.

We played a game once with a house rule that regardless of how many corps you have in a stack, in a battle you could only use a number equal to your leader's TM rating plus the TM rating of any one other commander in the stack.

Probably needed a little work but we played it once to good effect, stopped huge stacks and made secondary commanders more useful - QED

[Skanvak]

Furthermore given that since EiANW has chosen to only allow a nation to supply its own (or loaned) units it will become impossible to create a large offensive force at distance, because everyone in an attacking stack has to be supplied by the same nation.

Indeed one of the point to improve.

Also EiANW has chosen to give everyone seven depots rather than the numbers in the board game, again making this rule even tougher.

I guess that can be corrected in the editor? We need a EiH and an original EiA scenario anyway.

[MarshallEllis]

The classic scenario is something that we are looking into!

[pzgndr]

Also EiANW has chosen to give everyone seven depots rather than the numbers in the board game, again making this rule even tougher.

The numbers could certainly be edited, but some additional consideration should be given to what the optimum number of depots should be per MP in this game. Considering the different loaned corps supply rules and no supply limits, to achieve comparable effects and balanced results some MPs may need more or less depots than in the original boardgame? Not sure what these revised numbers should be, but some of the more experienced players may be able to offer some insights for how to best compensate for the computer game differences.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

Monster stacks are probably better dealt with through leaders tactical maximum ratings.

We played a game once with a house rule that regardless of how many corps you have in a stack, in a battle you could only use a number equal to your leader's TM rating plus the TM rating of any one other commander in the stack.

Probably needed a little work but we played it once to good effect, stopped huge stacks and made secondary commanders more useful - QED

NOTE: In the original rules, without optional ones or errata, you could have any number of corps present but the leader's tactical rating never went down by more than 2. 13 corps or 50 corps stacks all would lead to Nappy being a 5.3 leader.

It was an optional rule that allowed the negative modifier to rise above 2.

[MarshallEllis]

FYI, your TR could be effectively reduced to zero in EiANW so I see this as a monster stack deterrent already.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

FYI, your TR could be effectively reduced to zero in EiANW so I see this as a monster stack deterrent already.

Not really. Especially if you can manage to stack up enough cavalry to give yourself cavalry superiority.

Actually I think another factor that triggers 'monstering' is the leader table. 5 tactical rating against 4 gives a +1/0 modifier but 5 against 3 is also +1/0. Since a common match up is Napoleon against Charles, there is no reason for Charles not to stack 12 corps under himself straight away, there is no penalty. This of course means that Napoleon can now go up to 12 without penalty too (if he can get them) so Charles can go up to 18 . . . .

If the progression on the leader table was smoother this could be avoided.

[MarshallEllis]

I cannot say there wouldn't ever be a scenario. You will always find excepetions. I just think the TMR is a good general way of helping!

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

FYI, your TR could be effectively reduced to zero in EiANW so I see this as a monster stack deterrent already.

Not really. Especially if you can manage to stack up enough cavalry to give yourself cavalry superiority.

Actually I think another factor that triggers 'monstering' is the leader table. 5 tactical rating against 4 gives a +1/0 modifier but 5 against 3 is also +1/0. Since a common match up is Napoleon against Charles, there is no reason for Charles not to stack 12 corps under himself straight away, there is no penalty. This of course means that Napoleon can now go up to 12 without penalty too (if he can get them) so Charles can go up to 18 . . . .

If the progression on the leader table was smoother this could be avoided.

No, Charles can't make the jump to 18 without penalty, because the table should then be 4 vs 2, which is 0/-1, not +1/0. Since it is expected that Nappy would have cav superiority, that makes it +1/-1 again. In EiANW, though, this is not implemented correctly, so you remain correct. Until Charles puts on the 19th corps ...

Leaders should only rarely drop from 3 to 2, because of this and other table changes.

Marshall: It would be really nice if we could choose to voluntaritly drop a leader's rating. This would be a simple check box, chosen before each round of combat. There are several combat table results for which a player might want to do this.

[Jimmer]

On the same subject, does anybody know if the game properly modifies the tactical rating of a leader if new corps arrive by reinforcement?

[Skanvak]

Marshall: It would be really nice if we could choose to voluntaritly drop a leader's rating. This would be a simple check box, chosen before each round of combat. There are several combat table results for which a player might want to do this.

I don't think this is neither in the rules nor in the spirit of the rules as this is very gamey. I don't think a General can change his quality on demand [:D] . If you have a serious basis for this change I am open to hear about it?

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

On the same subject, does anybody know if the game properly modifies the tactical rating of a leader if new corps arrive by reinforcement?

Sure does!
when corps and/or leaders arrive via reinforcement then all leadership values should be recalced.

OR at least it should! :-/

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Marshall: It would be really nice if we could choose to voluntaritly drop a leader's rating. This would be a simple check box, chosen before each round of combat. There are several combat table results for which a player might want to do this.

I don't think this is neither in the rules nor in the spirit of the rules as this is very gamey. I don't think a General can change his quality on demand [:D] . If you have a serious basis for this change I am open to hear about it?

It's part of the original rules.

Plus, it's not gamey at all. The combat tables are an artificial abstraction to start with, so just having them in existence is equally "gamey". This rule allows a mid-level general to make the choice between pushing harder or holding back a bit, depending on the force he is up against. "Pushing harder" would be choosing a +1/0 over a "0/-1" ("holding back"). Other possibilities are +1/+1 vs 0/0 or 0/0 vs -1/-1. As you can see, this does not significantly increase or decrease the overall balance between the two forces. All it changes is how fiercely that round's action is fought.

Highly-rated generals (tactical 5) won't need to use it unless their opponent overstacks or has a poor general. In that kind of a situation, it makes far more sense than being locked in on a particular combat table.

The one other possibility is that a higher-rated general who has cav superiority may be able to change the gap between the forces (rather than leave it roughly neutral). This could happen when a 5 leader is against a 2 leader and (if memory serves) when a 4 is up against a 1 leader. In those case, the default is +1/-1. But, if a leader ALSO has cav superiority, he afford to overstack his army without losing the bonus. I can see how this could be called gamey, but again consider what's happening: A far superior general is fighting a very weak one. It's a cinch that the superior general is going to better use his ancillary forces (cavalry, in this case), so the "gameyness" is reduced (IMO).