One Concern

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Wynter
On the other hand, by surrendering early, the aggressor could ask for an unconditional surrender. Accepting an unconditional surrender just to avoid losing troops, etc could have a tremendous effect on your nation (lose 3 corps, lose 3 provinces and lose your printed value of income)...
I would never give up without a decent fight.

Wynter.

Far better than losing troops . You dont understand.
in the classic game you MUST beat Napoleon. You have no other choice. If you do NOT, you will be attacked by france every 18
months. It is simple as that. He will crush you.
He will give your allies a 24 month peace, and he will never have to face both of you again.

he wins.

EVERY war with France must be examined for its effect upon
that issue. If you cant fight, you sure dont need to help him win.

EXCEPT is winter. In winter it is worth making him pay for supply.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Uncle Toby
If ‘pregame agreement’ is a synonym for ‘rules addendum’ I’m all for it. In the five or so games of EiA I’ve played which lasted long enough to be worthy of the name we changed the rules with every game. What we didn’t do is revise the rules by consensus during the game according to some notion of historicity. We also didn’t have vague notions in the rules. The rules were played as written and we had no arguments about them I can recall, though we did have a lot of short games where what some would call exploiting the rules caused an abrupt end of the game. That didn’t bother me, a game lasts as long as it lasts.

The larger observation I make about this subject is that this notion if historicity is the root of all the problems with EiA which make it so frustrating. Give it up and design a game not a Napoleonic era simulator, that task is impossible and will leave you with neither the one thing or the other only a sickly hybrid. I can understand the love of history which make someone want to enjoy a simulation, I just don’t think games are a very good method. Become a re-enactor or write historical novels, if you want to relive history, more games have been spoiled by this notion of simulation than by anything except marketing departments.

Even if you were right, not everyone shares that view. they wont vanish.

[Wynter]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Far better than losing troops . You dont understand.
in the classic game you MUST beat Napoleon. You have no other choice. If you do NOT, you will be attacked by france every 18
months. It is simple as that. He will crush you.
He will give your allies a 24 month peace, and he will never have to face both of you again.

he wins.

EVERY war with France must be examined for its effect upon
that issue. If you cant fight, you sure dont need to help him win.

EXCEPT is winter. In winter it is worth making him pay for supply.

I do understand.
For the moment I'm in a ftf game where Austria and Prussia just surrendered instead of fighting Napoleon. The net result was that both Prussia and Austria didn't lose many troops, but France didn't lose any troops either. And that's the whole problem now. France was able to powerbuild for more than three years without any decent battle, his army is maxed to the top AND his cities are full of infantry garrisons? He could basicly lose his entire standing army and still has enough infantry to rebuild every single corps.
Even if you can't win from France, you should fight him just to some damage on his army. The troops you can kill won't be used against any other nation.

Wynter.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Wynter
I do understand.
For the moment I'm in a ftf game where Austria and Prussia just surrendered instead of fighting Napoleon. The net result was that both Prussia and Austria didn't lose many troops, but France didn't lose any troops either. And that's the whole problem now. France was able to powerbuild for more than three years without any decent battle, his army is maxed to the top AND his cities are full of infantry garrisons? He could basicly lose his entire standing army and still has enough infantry to rebuild every single corps.
Even if you can't win from France, you should fight him just to some damage on his army. The troops you can kill won't be used against any other nation.

Wynter.

True except that the REAL Grande Armie is those 7 corp.
Unless he is fighting in France, garrisons are useless.
I have seen battles that stripped the those corps of troops
in just two turns. Yes he can run back to France...but you can do alot of damage in the meantime.

[Reknoy]

I gotta weigh in on this discussion!

But later! Still time to play with my kids.

[Hoplosternum]

Hi Wynter,

I was refering to times when the war appears very one sided. There are times when you know you have little or no chance. And the outcome is going to lead to your Unconditional surrender anyway. My point was under these conditions why fight and make your losses greater and your recovery take longer?

I accept that there are certain countries who should perhaps fight anyway. Maybe Austria and Prussia fall into this category against France? But if defeat seems inevitable before it begins then why let your opponent take more territories, VPs and cause more casualties to you? But I don't see how this would be the case with France vs Prussia and Austria early - IMHO they have a great chance. I am talking about very one sided wars. e.g: Russia, England and Spain against the Turks

Obviously if you believe that your attacker(s) are themselves about to be attacked or cannot afford to spend the time to force your surrender then that is something different even if you are weak. But often that is not the case - then the rules make the immediate surrender (unhistorical and gamey though many think it is) the better strategy IME.

[Le Tondu]

Wow, what a conversation. I am grateful for it because I am learning much.

Oh man, I can't wait to get this game. I will be as patient as it takes, so no need to hurry Matrix. Do it right.

I wonder, is there any word about pre-orders?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
Wow, what a conversation. I am grateful for it because I am learning much.

Oh man, I can't wait to get this game. I will be as patient as it takes, so no need to hurry Matrix. Do it right.

I wonder, is there any word about pre-orders?

This is nothing...wait till your trying to get a fleet to England...
there are the REAL fights. And regardless what anyone tells you,
the rules are NOT clear.

I hope they use the War College rules instead of the original
edition.

[Wynter]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I hope they use the War College rules instead of the original
edition.

War College rules? I don't seem to know those rules. Could you post them, please.

Wynter.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Wynter
War College rules? I don't seem to know those rules. Could you post them, please.

Wynter.

HUH?

I think they are on Grognards...you cant really be serious.

[Reknoy]

Originally posted by Chiteng
HUH?

I think they are on Grognards...you cant really be serious.

What an odd comment. I have played EiA since the 80's and never used the "War College" rules. If what you are referring to is the ANR or some other variant...but the reference escapes my feeble brain as well.

And I think I'm serious.

Huh?

[Le Tondu]

I looked at Web-grognards and didn't see any of the variants called War College. A link to them would be nice.

As for the "you cant really be serious" comment made by Chiteng, I believe that it was made in response to Wynter asking: "Could you post them, please."

Now, if this variant is humongous in size, Chiteng's comment would make perfect sense. Wouldn't everyone agree? Who wants the (potentially) largest posting ever made to be made here?

Not everyone here has english as their primary language and I think that it would help if remembered that.

Still, a link to the "War College" rules introduced by Chiteng would be splendidly recieved by all.

Lastly, what might be the areas where the rules are vague and unclear. Posting them here might help Matrix to correct them since "doing it right" is something that they're interested in.

[Chiteng]

I will look for it...I thought it was common knowledge

[denisonh]

Are you referring to the Air Force Academy rules?

The variants they had were excellent.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
Are you referring to the Air Force Academy rules?

The variants they had were excellent.

I started a new thread to a good link.

[Uncle Toby]

Chiteng

You are quite right. I feel like a doctor endlessly repeating, "to lose weight you must consume fewer calories than you burn".

Against desire, faith and hope I have only experience and reason and experience is telling me I haven’t got a chance - but I did point out I don’t care about winning. I would so like a decent computer game though, I feel like the fan of some perennially losing sports franchise. There hasn’t been a decent multiplayer strategy game for the PC since Sid Meier’s ‘Gettysburg’.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Uncle Toby
Chiteng

You are quite right. I feel like a doctor endlessly repeating, "to lose weight you must consume fewer calories than you burn".

Against desire, faith and hope I have only experience and reason and experience is telling me I haven’t got a chance - but I did point out I don’t care about winning. I would so like a decent computer game though, I feel like the fan of some perennially losing sports franchise. There hasn’t been a decent multiplayer strategy game for the PC since Sid Meier’s ‘Gettysburg’.

Yes the game that has Union Cav using Muskets and fighting like line infantry.

The Union Cav used carbines fought prone and 1/3 of them were not fighting because they were holding the horses.

The Confed Cav used Pistols and Shotguns

An interesting game if you dont mind reality.

[Uncle Toby]

I think you begin to understand. Reality and a game or a film or even a book intersect at only a few points. It is bordering on the delusional to think that because ‘Gettysburg’ intersects on 100 points out of a million and some revised version of EiA intersects on 200 that it has significantly greater value as history. Double next to nothing and you are still next to nothing.

The myriad lapses from points of historical interest in SMG are far less important than the many excellent game mechanics (as a multi-player game, it was useless as single player as all strategy games are) - for it is a game. It’s relation to the actual battle of Gettysburg is similar to the costume of David’s ‘Napoleon Crossing the Alps’ and the clothes Bounaparte actually wore on that day.

They aren’t reality, that’s why we call them games.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Uncle Toby
I think you begin to understand. Reality and a game or a film or even a book intersect at only a few points. It is bordering on the delusional to think that because ‘Gettysburg’ intersects on 100 points out of a million and some revised version of EiA intersects on 200 that it has significantly greater value as history. Double next to nothing and you are still next to nothing.

The myriad lapses from points of historical interest in SMG are far less important than the many excellent game mechanics (as a multi-player game, it was useless as single player as all strategy games are) - for it is a game. It’s relation to the actual battle of Gettysburg is similar to the costume of David’s ‘Napoleon Crossing the Alps’ and the clothes Bounaparte actually wore on that day.

They aren’t reality, that’s why we call them games.

Well my enjoyment of that game was trashed by exactly such
historical inaccuracies.

[Uncle Toby]

This notion of realism in games which strikes me as so strange yet seems to be accepted by most people might be a fruitful field for further examination. Let me make it clear that the lack of realism I am going to point out does not bother me in the least, my attitude is the only true absurdity is to expect a game to be able to simulate such a complex real life system.

Let’s look at the tip of the iceberg in EiA. The tip is of course a small part of the iceberg but it’s the most visible part as well as the bit one’s ship usually runs afoul of so it seems like a good place to start.

EiA is a game in which you allocate resources (money and manpower) wage military campaigns by moving across a map representing regions of Europe, the Mideast and North Africa and make diplomatic arraignments. The goal is to accumulate status points bestowed for controlling areas, winning battles and wars and directly through purchase. This is supposed to simulate Napoleonic era war, politics and economy.

The resources are key here so we’ll start with them. Revenue in EiA is fixed based on trading partners and areas controlled and the tax rate (which may be set at will for a fixed penalty in stability) an abstraction so gross as to be absurd. What state of that era or this could depend on revenues based solely on these factors? Manpower is a fixed number based on areas controlled, all manpower is of uniform quality whether you enlist 10% of what is available or 100%. The amount enlisted has no effect on the economy or on the stability (no draft riots in our game thank you). The availability and quality does not vary with the situation of the country (whether they are desperate or riding a wave of popular approval), more absurdities.

On to the military campaigns: Armies move at a fixed rate of speed (what army ever managed this?) They take attrition but are not slowed down by moving in massive numbers (traffic jams apparently kill in our fantasy world but do not delay). Orders are never misunderstood, no happenstance misdirects, rain, sleet and snow may kill but they do not throw off the reliable schedule of our dependable army of postmen. Disease is likewise commendably dependable, taking a predictable range of our army’s strength based on clearly printed factors within the range determined by a die with a laudably Platonic, unvarying six sides. It is no wonder so many can approach the genius of Napoleon within such constrained parameters.

Unrealistic as the armies are the navies take the prize. They not only move at a consistent rate but do so in any direction, regardless of the wind. Combatant ships are either cleanly sunk or unscathed by the sword of Mars and as ready to battle as the day they were launched. They are also built to a marvelously uniform standard, every ship having the value of one, every crew patriotically egalitarian in exhibiting the morale value of it’s nation despite disparate circumstances.

I could go on about the marvelously dependable public reaction to the making and breaking of treaties, the winning of battles and financial manipulations, but you get the idea.

The plain fact is to make EiA even remotely simulate Napoleonic era conflict you would either have to randomize things to the point of an unacceptable (in a game) lack of control or make it so incredibly complicated it would take months to learn and longer to play than the actual wars it recreates. More importantly every step towards realism would be a step away from game quality.

I’ll take a few unrealistic muskets any day.