June Update (A little early)

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

I'm not real familiar with the historical details of the insurrection guys but as far as EIA, I feel that they are necessary because that makes Turkey think twice about invading. Without the insurrection corps, Austria is quite vulnerable. I know they have other corps units BUT we all know they end up being setup in Venice or close to Bavaria to defend against the little Corsican.

I think their absence could tilt the game (Even further) against Austria.

BTW: Learned this from you guys and a little research!

Thank you

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

I wish I could say tommorrow ... but I can't ... my wife wishes I could say today ... but I can't

The fact that we're playtesting is a good thing. It will helps us give a more detailed timeline for release BUT it could delay things further since it can also expose major design issues (Which are better found by the playtesters). These guys are what Matrix has picked to be hardcore EIA guys (A crowd that could surely scare a grizzly bear until they're happy:-)) I've got my work cut out for me and only hope to survive it! The benefit to this is that you will have a finely tuned and tested EIA game (maybe at the expense of a little time)!

Sorry for the rambling but to summarize:

No, We have no more detailed release info other than Summer 2003.

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions???

[jnier]

Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
Hey guys:

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions???

Marshall,

However you end up coding this, there should be some serious Fog of War involved to reflect the great imprecisions involved indentifying ship types. Ships of the Napoleonic era routintely misidentified ships, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

As an example, a French commerce raider that was operating in the Indian Ocean missed a golden oportunity to attack a convoy of English merchantman, because the French captian believed them to be warships, and the French warship actually fled from the English merchant ships! Later this same captain made the opposite blunder, attacking a large goup of english warships, believing them to be defenseless merchant ships. The badly outgunned French ship was promptly sunk.

So obviously FOW should loom large in interception attempts. Ships should sometimes mistakenly engage larger forces and mistakenly avoid less powerful ships.

Jason

BTW, will privateers be coded like in EIH?

[sol_invictus]

As I haven't played the game I can't comment on any possible rules for interception. I will plead with you however, to take all the time you need to iron out any wrinkles. We have waited this long and are so close, that it would be a crime to be in any rush to get this masterpiece out the door early. Use as much time as you are given and thrill us all.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
Hey guys:

I'm not real familiar with the historical details of the insurrection guys but as far as EIA, I feel that they are necessary because that makes Turkey think twice about invading. Without the insurrection corps, Austria is quite vulnerable. I know they have other corps units BUT we all know they end up being setup in Venice or close to Bavaria to defend against the little Corsican.

I think their absence could tilt the game (Even further) against Austria.

BTW: Learned this from you guys and a little research!

Thank you

The whole point of the Ins Corp, is to force an unexpected battle
NOT on the terms of the moving player.
Typical play would have you simply watch the enemy move
and when a Corp you DIDNT want to see at the MAIN battle site
moved into the area you pop up the INS corp.
Now regardless of who wins...That corps wont show up this turn
wherever you wanted it.
If that Corp happened to be say....the French Arty Corp...that
really hurt the French. See?

[Chiteng]

As to how the game plays....who knows?
We must download it...and play it.

Sounds great so far.

I hope Mogami is in playtest =)

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Reknoy
The problem, however, is that they are a part of the game.

I am doubting they would be changed so much.

However, that does lend credence to the notion that reducing their efficacy a little would at least be inoffensive to the historical perspective (which perspective would mandate greater change still, per Le Tondu).

Reknoy

I never thought that they shouldn't be part of the game. They existed historically and they should not be left out, IMO.

I do believe however that they should be accurately and historically represented. If by themselves they end up being as strong as the French or any Corps containing regulars for that matter, it would be a mistake.

That is all that I am saying.

[Hoche]

Marshall said:

TURKISH FEUDALS have been added to the game and act as normal with the exception that the units (In place of the levy step) can be stood down in December then brought back (To full strength of course) in the January Reinforcement phase. Keep in mind that the feudals can still be stood down at any other reinforcement phase and brought back (At the same strength levels) in any later reinforcement phase.


This concerns me a bit. It is a considerable change from the normal Turkish Feudal corps rules. With the exception of the Dec levy step FC are placed and removed during the land phase. Moving their placement and removal to the reinforcement phase casues some problems. Will a FC placed during a turn's reinfrocement phase be able to move during that turn's land phase? Under the normal rules FC placed during the land phase can't move that turn.

This also prevents France and Russia (who can move before Turkey in the land phase) from being able to move in and prevent the placement of FC. This change in the rules will force other changes in games play that purests like me don't want to see. I think a serious mistake has been made with regards to FC placement.

I don't wish to be so negative. In general I am excited about the game and want it to succed. That is why I am voicing my concerns over this is.

[timothy_stone]

Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
Hey guys:

Just thinking out loud...

What about the following interception options:

Intercept Weaker Force
Intercept If Transports Present
Intercept ALL

Opinions???

The crux here is trying to make it so that GB has a chance to stay alive - especially in the first 6 months when any FR invasion is a disaster due to the lack of a GB army and no leaders.

there are times when GB would want to intercept fleets with corps even if outgunned - would it be possible to tick 'intercept weaker force *and* intercept if transports present so that GB could cover both bases?

For the *crucial* turns (an invasion attempt on GB), it might be best to be able to turn the auto-react AI off and let the players
go piece by piece in some way --- although i suppose players could agree to simply play the turn out via text instead if absolutely necessary.

But right now, from the looks of things, the naval situation will be *much* more dicey for GB, which seriously tilts the game towards france. As far as i can tell, right now it might be bad enough to break the game, because it looks like GB is going to get forced into a UC surrender 50% of the time in 1805.

although there are ways around this (e.g. russia can try to save GB), it will seriously change the flavor of the game.

[Wynter]

Originally posted by timothy_stone
But right now, from the looks of things, the naval situation will be *much* more dicey for GB, which seriously tilts the game towards france. As far as i can tell, right now it might be bad enough to break the game, because it looks like GB is going to get forced into a UC surrender 50% of the time in 1805.

Why would that be?
Britain sets up his naval forces after France, so he can blockade the French fleet. Normally he should have enough ships left to place some fleets around Britian and give those fleets the "patrol/intercept everything" command. It will be one lucky Frenchman who can dodge all fleets and make it to Britain.

Jeroen.

[Wynter]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The whole point of the Ins Corp, is to force an unexpected battle
NOT on the terms of the moving player.
Typical play would have you simply watch the enemy move
and when a Corp you DIDNT want to see at the MAIN battle site
moved into the area you pop up the INS corp.
Now regardless of who wins...That corps wont show up this turn
wherever you wanted it.
If that Corp happened to be say....the French Arty Corp...that
really hurt the French. See?

You are presuming that movement is conducted corps by corps and not the whole stack at the same time.
I know the rules say that you move corps by corps until every corps has moved, but I always played with a 'houserule' that you can move a stack of corps together.

Marshall, how will the computer game handle it? Corps by corps movement or stack movement?

Jeroen.

[timothy_stone]

Originally posted by Wynter
Why would that be?
Britain sets up his naval forces after France, so he can blockade the French fleet. Normally he should have enough ships left to place some fleets around Britian and give those fleets the "patrol/intercept everything" command. It will be one lucky Frenchman who can dodge all fleets and make it to Britain.

Jeroen.

How familiar are you with the game? I'll give you a rough example. As france, i have 4 fleets plus holland, yes? let's put one of each in amsterdam, antwerp, le havre, st malo, brest. corps on each fleet. different folks like different setups, i like 30s at le havre, even division of remainder. that often makes GB put 2 fleets at le havre

now - if FR rolls control of denmark (or portugal or sweden, i will use denmark for example) - place the danish fleet in hamburg/amsterdam SZ.

if GB goes first and attacks it, it retreats one sea area - usually north since east is evenmore disastrous. in FR turn, with 7 movement points it canmake it to brest - the combined brest and danish forces will outnumber the british fleet. so they escape. Now the combined danish/brest fleets (and 1 corps) go to st malo - those 3 fleets will beat the GB fleet there too.

so now you have 2 fleets with corps loose in the channel. The danes ended movement in the st malo bb. the st malo and brest fleets can spring the antwerp fleet, and you get teh idea - fr will end the turnwith at least 4 corps ready to land on GB (often the le havre fleet stays in port).

40 FR inf and davout will burn london - and the next turn often the le havre fleet can be sprung, allowing an invasion of ireland.

----------------------- alternate scenario ---------------------

if GB moves *last* - france does teh same thing, usually starting at antwerp or amsterdam instead, and simply parks his ships in a british BB at the end of the turn (e.g. yarmouth etc) - GB can attackand beat them, but they do a sea area retreat and still invade GB.

this technique is a PAIN for GB to work against, even live and able to make those crucial decisions in person. trying to forestall it by clicking a box is a nightmare.

and that's just france alone - imagine if SP sends just one 30-s fleet.

for GB, the decision of 'will i intercept here, or there -- if i intercept there i am out of position to intercept this other fleet' is so often crucial.

the above can also be pulled with portugal, then sweden in order of priority.

in some cases FR will have to DoW the power that attacked denmark etc to ensure full control of the fleet (depending on how you define controlled minors, a grey area in the rules).

that's just france working with a single minor - with the new system, as far as i can see, a fr-sp or fr-ru alliance is *so* much more of a threat to GB.

am not complaining, not at all - just pointing out what i think will be the absolutely most difficult area to port from the paper game to the computer game.

there are tons of variations on the above - oh, would that i could beta test!!....

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Hoche
Marshall said:

TURKISH FEUDALS have been added to the game and act as normal with the exception that the units (In place of the levy step) can be stood down in December then brought back (To full strength of course) in the January Reinforcement phase. Keep in mind that the feudals can still be stood down at any other reinforcement phase and brought back (At the same strength levels) in any later reinforcement phase.


This concerns me a bit. It is a considerable change from the normal Turkish Feudal corps rules. With the exception of the Dec levy step FC are placed and removed during the land phase. Moving their placement and removal to the reinforcement phase casues some problems. Will a FC placed during a turn's reinfrocement phase be able to move during that turn's land phase? Under the normal rules FC placed during the land phase can't move that turn.

This also prevents France and Russia (who can move before Turkey in the land phase) from being able to move in and prevent the placement of FC. This change in the rules will force other changes in games play that purests like me don't want to see. I think a serious mistake has been made with regards to FC placement.

I don't wish to be so negative. In general I am excited about the game and want it to succed. That is why I am voicing my concerns over this is.

If it is a change from the original I agree...I didnt notice that.
That means that the Turks will get hit for support costs.
That is IMPORTANT. Prolly should change it to the original

[Reknoy]

Tim:

I have played maybe 30-40 games of EiA -- few of which ever resulted in London burning because of what you described.

Weaker British player or foolish Spanish/Russian players may make for difficulty to Britain -- but imo that's a problem no matter what you do with interception.

I think we let the playtesters see how it goes. According to Marshall we have a "who's who" of EiA players (I'm sure there are also a host of others out there who were not on the list).

These types of things (gross inequities) come out pretty fast in playtesting.

Likewise the "problem" with feudal corps;

Likewise the insurrection corps.

Likewise anything else that anyone is worried about.

Imo if Marshall and the gang work their tails off due to our ranting in the forum, just think what they'll do if the playtesters present a strong case for revisiting interception! Or anything else for that matter.

It's looking good.

Reknoy

[timothy_stone]

Originally posted by Reknoy
Tim:

I have played maybe 30-40 games of EiA -- few of which ever resulted in London burning because of what you described.

Weaker British player or foolish Spanish/Russian players may make for difficulty to Britain -- but imo that's a problem no matter what you do with interception.

Reknoy

in your 40 games, how many times have you seen such a ploy tried? If your group tends to put the fleets in clumps or in the Med, of course it won't happen. That's not a useful comparison. If you sit down with a pencil and wargame it out though, you'll see how much of a threat it is even with a live defending admiral.

I agree that a hostile Sp or Ru player is a problem, I'm just pointing out that they will be much *more* of a problem without live control of your fleets.

Of course, one of the main strengths of EiA is that it is a 7-player, long game, and that means even if the balance is changed, other players can identify that and adjust accordingly - though i worry that this threatens to be a fairly large balance shift

[pfnognoff]

Problem here is simple, invasion of Britain must be a possibility and a real threat, while on the other hand it must not be made to easy due to lack of "live" interception attempts.

Playtesters should focus on this first.

BTW how will pursuit after naval combat be handled? Who will decide if the loosing fleet returning to port will be pursued after succesfull Interception? AI is never strong enough to make this type of decissions.

[Reknoy]

Agree with what Tim and Pfog wrote.

Also agree that playtesters MUST put stress on these types of paradigms (the French/British sparring in the early stages of the game).

That's the key. As France, try like mad to invade Britain.

Turning for a moment on the France/Britain conundrum, I want to share at least some thoughts and one experience over the whole matter.

In answer to Tim's question -- yes, I have seen nearly every type of setup for French fleets (with or without negotiated Spanish support at the outset). Average ship counts, unbalanced counts, all in one port, etc.

One thing that some of the groups I played with did not originally account for, however, was that the British (in fact, any blockading fleet) had to win the blockade box interception battle in order to keep the French in. That realization, of course, changed their tactics even further.

More often than not, however, the French player would lose political points and ships and Britain would grow thinner (and thus subject to attack from Spain/Russia).

So, in more seasoned groups, it boiled down to strategies that were wholly apart from the "norm" (like gathering French fleets in the Med and fleeing to the Dardanelles -- for all sorts of fun purposes).

We still had players that pushed the envelope.

One such French player turned a lot of his attention to invading Britain.

He eventually succeeded (with the help of Spain) in landing on England. If you've tried it, you usually think you've won the war once you've landed.

Anyway, London was defended for a few months (after all, France had to have some defense against the Prussian/Austria). If you keep all the British troops at home, you would be amazed at how well they hold out and how England is positioned (with cities in the north that can raise corps to guard Edinburgh) to defend itself once it's been attacked.

All the while Austria, Prussia and Russia sat by.

The British player did not however (as most do) surrender. He kept holding out and won one land combat over London that was spectacular. That morale and the fact that there were not a ton (only 25) French in the battle saved his behind. But again, that goes with invading Britain mostly.

Ultimately France had a decent force in England. London was under French control and all of England was close to falling.

Then the other allies came.

With Ireland still open, Britain clung to life. Britain was not helpless on the seas and once the French made their fateful landing there was a lot of French blood on the sea. (Spanish, too, for that matter).

France was ill prepared for a defense of the homeland and was severely beaten. Britain gained so many PPs from the numerous battles with Nelson that he was deep in the Dominant Zone.

Granted there are extremes at work here --- but the whole notion that the game is over if France gets to land the I corps in England is incorrect, imo.

How many times does France surrender in the "First War" (1805-1806)? Most of the time if the allies are any good.

When France devotes more attention to Britain, and unless the British player is weak in the knees, France has always surrendered and always gets taken out of England (in my experience).

By the way, I was once the British player with weak knees. In my second game ever I was Britain (bad idea). I declared war on Denmark and Sweden in the same month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember -- second game!!

I'm not sure I even need to go into the rest. I surrendered.

The game went awry after that. France had his come-uppance, but it wasn't the same.

Cheers,

Reknoy

[timothy_stone]

Originally posted by Reknoy


In answer to Tim's question -- yes, I have seen nearly every type of setup for French fleets (with or without negotiated Spanish support at the outset). Average ship counts, unbalanced counts, all in one port, etc.

One thing that some of the groups I played with did not originally account for, however, was that the British (in fact, any blockading fleet) had to win the blockade box interception battle in order to keep the French in. That realization, of course, changed their tactics even further.

having seen similar setups is not enough - you have to be playing people who know how to play.....



I agree that france does not automatically win once he gets ashore, and a game is *much* more interesting when britain is willing to bite the bullet and try to hang in there. but barring ridiculous luck, davout and 40 factors are going to take a huge time to pry out of london.

that means that GB gets no cash, builds little/no infantry and loses 3 pps a quarter - and none of the allies get trade, etc etc - all of which is a great strategic long-term advantage for france.

but as i've said earlier, with 7 players you can always adapt.

[Wynter]

Originally posted by timothy_stone
How familiar are you with the game?

LOL!!! Very familiar I should say

Both your scenario's take into account the British declaring war on Denmark of Portugal. In most of the games I played, the British commander is wise enough to take very good care on when he declares war on Denmark or Portugal.
Most novice players madly scramble to gain control of the available minors, but that is not the way to go with Britain.

Let me give you an example
In the PBEM game I'm gamemastering atm, we are now May 1806 and still Denmark AND Portugal are uncontrolled minor countries. You see, we have played for a year-and-a-half and there was no opportunity for Britain to declare war on any of the two minors because the possibility that France gained control of any of those fleets would spell disaster for Britain.

Jeroen.