The other problem with EiA was that a siege, foraging and "storming" a city caused or could cause long term disruption of the economy. This is not reflected in EiA. Simpler book keeping. Plus who got the booty? How much ended up in the Marshal’s Chateau or the nap sac and how much did the Crown get? I know you just "shot the Irish" (please insert your favorite repressed nationality) to keep them from stealing “everything”. The other problem is that some troops tend to dissolve as they cart home their plunder, Cossacks????
It would make the decision on weather to surrender after a breach more realistic if the loss of the Siege caused the ruin of provincial income for a couple of years.
I can’t remember, do you get the trade income off the controlled port? So would the Austrian and Brits get to count the trade income from the controlled enemy home province port?
Quick update
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
dpstafford
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
- Location: Colbert Nation
Originally posted by Black Hat
The other problem with EiA was that a siege, foraging and "storming" a city caused or could cause long term disruption of the economy. This is not reflected in EiA. Simpler book keeping. Plus who got the booty? How much ended up in the Marshal’s Chateau or the nap sac and how much did the Crown get? I know you just "shot the Irish" (please insert your favorite repressed nationality) to keep them from stealing “everything”. The other problem is that some troops tend to dissolve as they cart home their plunder, Cossacks????
It would make the decision on weather to surrender after a breach more realistic if the loss of the Siege caused the ruin of provincial income for a couple of years.
I can’t remember, do you get the trade income off the controlled port? So would the Austrian and Brits get to count the trade income from the controlled enemy home province port?
Agreed storming a city should result in auto-pillage.
But only if resisted.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Originally posted by dpstafford
Which is was........
Except that Napoleon DID invade and he DID make it to Moscow.
In fact he stayed there a couple months.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Exactly so, Chiteng. And had the Russians not been disposed to burn their own capitol city, he likely could've wintered there. The burning of Moscow by the Russians was what mandated the disastrous "retreat" in the middle of winter. La Grande Armee could not survive that deep in Russia w/o "winter quarters".
Doubtful (as history has shown) that any other MP would burn their own capitol. French burn Paris? Never. Austrians burn Vienna? Nope. English burn London? No way. Only the Russians, likely b/c they were so mystical and truly believed Napoleon was the antichrist. :rolleyes:
Doubtful (as history has shown) that any other MP would burn their own capitol. French burn Paris? Never. Austrians burn Vienna? Nope. English burn London? No way. Only the Russians, likely b/c they were so mystical and truly believed Napoleon was the antichrist. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Capitaine
Exactly so, Chiteng. And had the Russians not been disposed to burn their own capitol city, he likely could've wintered there. The burning of Moscow by the Russians was what mandated the disastrous "retreat" in the middle of winter. La Grande Armee could not survive that deep in Russia w/o "winter quarters".
Doubtful (as history has shown) that any other MP would burn their own capitol. French burn Paris? Never. Austrians burn Vienna? Nope. English burn London? No way. Only the Russians, likely b/c they were so mystical and truly believed Napoleon was the antichrist. :rolleyes:
Moscow itself was NOT what I would be fearfull of.
If there was a pillage rule to use, you would be very luckt to make it to moscow with ANYTHING.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
If you are Napoleon and decide to invade Russia, you may decide that your troops can live off the land through plundering Russia's wheat, livestock, etc.
So you invade.
When you invade a Russian province a panel pops up:
1) Plunder province for one-time loot (and risk some unrest from populace); or
2) Conscript troops from province (and risk some urest); or
3) Do nothing
You choose to plunder the province. But lo and behold, you find out there is NOTHING to plunder! Why? The Russians have beaten you to it (the game should provide the possibility that if Russia is invaded, then the Russians may conduct a Scorched Earth policy to deny forage to the invader). But Fog of War will never let you know whether the provinces laying before you have been plundered.
So, the big choice is: Do you keep going, hoping that the Russians WON'T plunder their own provinces (by doing so, they are also denying themselves valuable resources), OR do you withdraw, delay invasion, until you have built-up adequate supplies to bring with you?
If you decide to invade, then you may find yourself facing many of Napoleon's dilemmas (lack of supply, winter weather, Cossacks, desertions, etc); if you decide to withdraw, then you may face a possible Coalition of Nations (activated by Russia) that may set you back even further. . .
So you invade.
When you invade a Russian province a panel pops up:
1) Plunder province for one-time loot (and risk some unrest from populace); or
2) Conscript troops from province (and risk some urest); or
3) Do nothing
You choose to plunder the province. But lo and behold, you find out there is NOTHING to plunder! Why? The Russians have beaten you to it (the game should provide the possibility that if Russia is invaded, then the Russians may conduct a Scorched Earth policy to deny forage to the invader). But Fog of War will never let you know whether the provinces laying before you have been plundered.
So, the big choice is: Do you keep going, hoping that the Russians WON'T plunder their own provinces (by doing so, they are also denying themselves valuable resources), OR do you withdraw, delay invasion, until you have built-up adequate supplies to bring with you?
If you decide to invade, then you may find yourself facing many of Napoleon's dilemmas (lack of supply, winter weather, Cossacks, desertions, etc); if you decide to withdraw, then you may face a possible Coalition of Nations (activated by Russia) that may set you back even further. . .
I have succeeded in invading Russia (as France) with supply chains. It was basically a one on one (as Britain was ineffective in helping Russia). I had only one set of depots.
Granted I never pinned him completely, but I had Moscow and St. Pete and Kiev, etc.
Plus there are strategies for invading through the Black Sea.
The whole point about the invasion hinging on being able to forage or pillage is somewhat of a red herring, imo.
Russia is the last place I'd choose to forage with or without pillaging. Especially in the winter. An army of any decent size will get decimated if they forage a lot in that case. At least, under the rules of EiA that I am aware of.
Cheers.
Reknoy
Granted I never pinned him completely, but I had Moscow and St. Pete and Kiev, etc.
Plus there are strategies for invading through the Black Sea.
The whole point about the invasion hinging on being able to forage or pillage is somewhat of a red herring, imo.
Russia is the last place I'd choose to forage with or without pillaging. Especially in the winter. An army of any decent size will get decimated if they forage a lot in that case. At least, under the rules of EiA that I am aware of.
Cheers.
Reknoy
Originally posted by Reknoy
I have succeeded in invading Russia (as France) with supply chains. It was basically a one on one (as Britain was ineffective in helping Russia). I had only one set of depots.
Granted I never pinned him completely, but I had Moscow and St. Pete and Kiev, etc.
Plus there are strategies for invading through the Black Sea.
The whole point about the invasion hinging on being able to forage or pillage is somewhat of a red herring, imo.
Russia is the last place I'd choose to forage with or without pillaging. Especially in the winter. An army of any decent size will get decimated if they forage a lot in that case. At least, under the rules of EiA that I am aware of.
Cheers.
Reknoy
But what happens when your supply lines have been severed, which should be a possibility, the further you drive into Russia?
Also, Britain's whole European strategy was to maintain a balance of power in Europe. Wth its huge fleet, it should be able to blocade French/European ports (or at least attempt to do so). At the very least attack French interests in Spain (if it is there at that point in the game) to draw off French troops from Russia.
Perhaps there should a "Bad Boy" value in the game, similar to EU2, such that, the more powerful a nation becomes, and the more it attacks other nations, then the more other nations will ally together to fight against that nation.
Actually, I had the benefit of controlling Poland at the time (note to aspiring Prussian players: Poland is a minor country that can be taken in a conditional peace land pick -- OUCH).
My supply therefore started from Poland and Britain was unable to effect the same blockade.
I had a plentiful supply of minor country corps to use as "sentries" over the supply chains and further as buffers for the "in between" areas between depots (which I would usually garrison with 5 factors each).
And I did not cover Russia -- just enough to get the surrender.
Reknoy
My supply therefore started from Poland and Britain was unable to effect the same blockade.
I had a plentiful supply of minor country corps to use as "sentries" over the supply chains and further as buffers for the "in between" areas between depots (which I would usually garrison with 5 factors each).
And I did not cover Russia -- just enough to get the surrender.
Reknoy
Originally posted by Reknoy
Actually, I had the benefit of controlling Poland at the time (note to aspiring Prussian players: Poland is a minor country that can be taken in a conditional peace land pick -- OUCH).
My supply therefore started from Poland and Britain was unable to effect the same blockade.
I had a plentiful supply of minor country corps to use as "sentries" over the supply chains and further as buffers for the "in between" areas between depots (which I would usually garrison with 5 factors each).
And I did not cover Russia -- just enough to get the surrender.
Reknoy
Great job
But somehow this all seems a bit too easy (something Napoleon never had despite his genius).
My theory to gaming should be: for every action, there should be a reaction or a consequence.
For example: if you draw supply from Poland, then a combined Russian/British naval blocade of Poland should be a very real possibility. Thus forcing you to draw supply directly from France (or force you to engage in a bloody naval campaign to break the blocade). The British navy should be a real headache for the French (which it was historically). If playing France the player will have to take this into account: do you build ships in early 1800s to counter the British navy, or do you go for a land army? Even with a large navy, France should possess poor to medium level Admirals, while the British should have several outstanding Admirals.
If you have long supply lines, then disruption of them by Cossacks, should be a very real possibility.
Also, Russia should not surrender if it loses its capital (the Russians burned the capital to show Napoleon that they would fight to the end). So perhaps special victory conditions are needed for Russia.
Weather in Russia (especially in winter) should impose a severe penalty on attacking forces. In addition, supply should be reduced slightly for each additional province your army moves from its initial country of supply.
Finally, I can't think of a better time when Napoleon is deep in Russia, his supply lines are long, and his forces are suffering attrition, then for a coalition of forces made up of British, Prussian, and Belgian forces to attack his rear provinces. . .
The "Bad Boy" values should determine the timing of coalition formations and their attacks on the aggressor (whoever that may be).
Cheers!
Originally posted by Von Rom
But what happens when your supply lines have been severed, which should be a possibility, the further you drive into Russia?
Surely that's Reknoy's point. You're screwed if that happens regardless of whether you've plundered or not - the forage values in Russia are too low to allow you to survive for any meaningful amount of time without depot supply.
As such the plunder decision is a no-brainer. You're going to be relying on depot supply, so you may as well plunder everything in site. Doesn't add much to the game really.
Actually no. You supply the important things and attrit the militia.Originally posted by Road's
Surely that's Reknoy's point. You're screwed if that happens regardless of whether you've plundered or not - the forage values in Russia are too low to allow you to survive for any meaningful amount of time without depot supply.
As such the plunder decision is a no-brainer. You're going to be relying on depot supply, so you may as well plunder everything in site. Doesn't add much to the game really.
CAV you supply, and arty and GDS (if you can)
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
A quick note on Insurrection Corps: It would be best (IMHO) if the Insurrection Corps were stood up instead on the reinforcement phase after a violation of the Insurrection provinces takes place IF there will be no mechanism for the Austrian player to do it himself at the exact time of violation.
The reason is that whatever criteria are applied to the automatica placement they will always be less than ideal, and prone to abuse by players who understand them... for example a good Turkish player should be able to figure out how to rbing overpowering force against the automatically stood up and leaderless Insurrection corps, and this would very much suck for Austria.
If I had the choice between 1) automatic placement suring enemy movement and b) "late" voluntary placement during the next reinforcement step, I pick "b" every time.
Also it'll be easier to implement, no question!
*Edit: whoops posted this in the worng thread. D'oh!
The reason is that whatever criteria are applied to the automatica placement they will always be less than ideal, and prone to abuse by players who understand them... for example a good Turkish player should be able to figure out how to rbing overpowering force against the automatically stood up and leaderless Insurrection corps, and this would very much suck for Austria.
If I had the choice between 1) automatic placement suring enemy movement and b) "late" voluntary placement during the next reinforcement step, I pick "b" every time.
Also it'll be easier to implement, no question!
*Edit: whoops posted this in the worng thread. D'oh!
We both play EiA, the greatest game ever conceived, after all! 