June Update (A little early)

[Wynter]

Originally posted by timothy_stone
...if GB moves *last*...

Oh, and by the way, the game will use sim-movement. There is no 'move first' or 'move last'.

Jeroen.

[timothy_stone]

Originally posted by Wynter
LOL!!! Very familiar I should say

Both your scenario's take into account the British declaring war on Denmark of Portugal.

Jeroen.

just checking - some of the folks posting are enthusiasts but don't always know the rules, etc .

and no, i am not assuming a GB DoW, any DoW of the three naval minors can do it, if FR gets control because FR can immediately DoW in support of that minor, thus getting 'full' control (as i mentioned above).

and yes, as GB I will usually threaten others most vilely to not attack said minors until later, but again, FR gains economically in comparison (and RU and Sp are not always obliging)

these issues are why i love this game

tim

p.s. to your comment that the naval phase will be simultaneous, then it is even harder for GB - because in the above denmark case, by the time nelson has reached the hamburg SZ to try to stop the danes, the danes have run around england and sprung the brest fleet free... etc

how will simult move affect the AH rules of each fleet can move 7 MP as long as none moves twice?

(imo a difficult rule since it allows 'unrealistic' ploys like the one outlined above)

is it simult as in your turn and my turn are done at the same time, or is it simult as in all my fleets must move in the same 7 phases

if hte latter, then that particular tactic described above is not applicable

[pfnognoff]

Originally posted by Reknoy
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.

Nice game!

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).

In games I was in, it was the quallity of the French player, and the state of his "knees", that usually determined the winner of the first war. It also falls down on diplomacy deals alot.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Making those two declarations in the same month is a result of "overestimated strength of knees sindrome".
But, seriously, Britain should be active at start and be able to take some manpower rich minors to boost his infantry production. If the interception is handled wrong in the PC version, Britain would be forced to stay home and win the land battle. And as you correctlly say it favours the other allies.

[Reknoy]

I think this is crux -- can Britain acquire a minor in 1805 in the beta?

I think, generally, a competent group of players can shepherd even a good British player into leaving the minor alone for the year.

However, a good British player should be able to take something in 1805. It might/should be tough (no leader and a preponderance of fleets needed to defend the homeland) but not impossible.

Testers should test these paradigms (Britain conquering minors in 1805; Turkey trying to form the Ottoman in 1805 or at any time; Spain trying to form the Ottoman; Prussia forming Poland and how long that can be held; the allies ability to successfully contain France in 1805) and all sorts of others.

[Reknoy]

By the way -- to your compliment of the game, that goes to Eric Falk. Arguably the best player of the game I ever met. Legally blind, he listens to the rules on tape. He even outpicks the goofs that pick randomly. He wins the most improbable battles.

One example -- the French are being cute by occupying the island next to Copenhagen (to act as a piece of the chain link to get across the Denmark straits). Ultimately France amasses a large army to cross the straits and they get to that same island (some are able to move into Copenhagen).

Britain takes Copenhagen back with Wellington and freezes the larger army on the island. Not waiting for support, Wellington crosses the strait in the next month and attacks the French on the island -- truly a "live or die" scenario as Davout is leading the French (it's a 15 on 50 battle). The French break with one British guard left standing!! Davout and a huge army went to London in chains. It was awesome.

Sometimes I would just be his assistant for a game and would describe the board to him. The problem in having another player describe the board is that they would (unintentionally I'm sure) leave out little details that make the difference sometimes. Further, they could not catch things that I might and then pass on to him (like, no corps is in 3 spaces of your capital...anything).

Anyway, he won't be as able to play this game. The one tragedy that mars my insane joy at the arrival of this game.

Cheers to you, Eric the Great!

Reknoy

[denisonh]

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???

A good start.

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by 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: So glad to hear that you are taking this approach. While I would like to play the game soon, I am more than willing to wait while the game is tweaked, tuned and put through its paces.

Quality will win out over speed any day of the week.

Beta Testers: Go to it guys. This will be the only game of its type on the market. Give it everything you've got. We are looking forward to having a great Napoleonic game

[Von Rom]

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???

With a Fog of War option turned on, then possible choices might be:

1) Intercept Weaker Force

2) Intercept if equal

3) Intercept If Transports Present

4) Intercept ALL

Again, without perfect knowledge (FoW), these conditions may or may not be present.

BTW, will Admiral skills be relevant in the game? If so, then the quality of your Admiral may be important in deciding on an option to use.

Historically, the French fleet commanded by Villeneuve refused to engage the British (he wouldn't leave port) no matter how many times Napoleon ordered him to do so.

[Rafel]

I think that the options have to be differents to british fleets than the rest of fleets, just because the brits where in sea more offensive than french, spanish, dannish, etc..., This was possible for the better trained and the better ships, with more maneouvarility and more fire power and precission.
In the game it's represented by +1 at interception and combat, and in the IA it maybe:

1.- attack fleets with transport
2.- attack all (but not a difference 1:2 or more)

The rest of nations can be how you have said before.

About Trafalgar and french caoutios Villeneuve: The spanish didn't want go out of port, because they know the superiority of Brits ships, but following the orders of Villenueve, admiral of the combined fleet, and the orders of Napoleon they go out, but among the frech ships, such a french ship, spanish ship, french ship, ...
Gravina, one of the best admirals of this age, killed in Trafalgar, always says that go out was a madness, but the orders of incompetent spanish politicians, admirals as Villenueve and Napoleon were more strongs than Gravina and his staff opinion.

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by Rafel
I think that the options have to be differents to british fleets than the rest of fleets, just because the brits where in sea more offensive than french, spanish, dannish, etc..., This was possible for the better trained and the better ships, with more maneouvarility and more fire power and precission.
In the game it's represented by +1 at interception and combat, and in the IA it maybe:

1.- attack fleets with transport
2.- attack all (but not a difference 1:2 or more)

The rest of nations can be how you have said before.

About Trafalgar and french caoutios Villeneuve: The spanish didn't want go out of port, because they know the superiority of Brits ships, but following the orders of Villenueve, admiral of the combined fleet, and the orders of Napoleon they go out, but among the frech ships, such a french ship, spanish ship, french ship, ...
Gravina, one of the best admirals of this age, killed in Trafalgar, always says that go out was a madness, but the orders of incompetent spanish politicians, admirals as Villenueve and Napoleon were more strongs than Gravina and his staff opinion.

I agree. I think crew and Admiral quality may be a larger factor than just ship numbers. Morale, discipline, training and courage will be big factors in deciding a ship engagement.

How can these factors best be represented?

[Rafel]

At the advanced naval rules of EiA, I think it's quite good represented, with british morale at 4 and the rest at 3, 25% more morale than the others normal countries, Austria, Prussia, and other, like could be Poland, with morale at 2, countries without naval tradition or with very old ships and bad trainings (North African countries?). It's just a proposal.

[Yorlum]

It seems to me that part of the British numerical advantage has to be based upon quality as well.

The rules say that ships equate to a ship of the line 'or a force of ships of approximately equal power'.

The British navy was not so much larger that it gets twice as many ships as France, so why should it get 100, v 49 for the Frogs?

Simple! It takes more French hulls to equate to one game 'ship'.

[baboune]

Actually, I think that the strength of the French Navy was close to 39 ships. Obviously, we are talking of major war ships and not all sizes of ships. I do not know the exact term for this type of boat. I think they were called "ships of the line".

Trafalgar was a major reason for this decrease in ships.

Interesting link:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~glover/france.html

[baboune]

Stupid of me I meant close to 49...

[baboune]

The numbers did vary a lot...
apparently down to 35 in 1807, back to 71 in 1817...
Good ships bad admirals.

[baboune]

As to bonuses for the english fleet, NELSON as a naval leader gives extraordinary advantages to the british fleet. Particularly when using the Advanced Naval rules.

12.2.7 Nelson: The basic rules of EIA resolve Nelson's chances of becoming a battle casualty as though he were a land officer. In actual fact, Nelson was noted for risking his life to ensure that his command acted according to his sometimes daring plans. He typically led the attack in his flag ship, having it attract and absorb the brunt of the initial enemy broadsides. He was, consequently, wounded several times and ultimately died leading the attack on Trafalgar. Much of this risk can be traced to Nelson's use of the melee tactic. The following allows a fleet commanded by Nelson to improve chances closing with the enemy in a melee, but with a corresponding increase in the risk of him becoming a casualty.

12.2.7.1 This rule modifies rule 12.2.7 to reflect the higher rate of naval officer casualties during this period. Instead of a casualty occurring only with a dice roll of 12, it now also occurs with a roll of 11.

12.2.7.2 If Optional rule 12.2.6.2 is used, and a stack of British fleets (only) commanded by Nelson has melee selected as its tactical chit by the controlling player, the number by which the player modifies the roll is also used to modify the casualty dice roll. The second roll to determine whether Nelson is wounded or killed is not modified.

Basically the english can not miss an arrival on Melee!

[soapyfrog]

Well, the maximum bonus for the melee chit Nelson can give is +2. Given that vs Linear Defence a successfull melee requires a 3 or less on the 2nd or 3rd round, Nelson can still fail to close if he rolls a 6.

I have personally experienced this, suffering an ignominius defeat against a linear defending Swedish fleet!

P.S. Baboune start digging graves for your Prussians...

[Chiteng]

The game is won or lost on land. Invading England isnt that
important. Even if you win, so what? beating England DOESNT
win the game. Although it would be nice England off its high horse.

[soapyfrog]

Oh and BTW Trafalger was in October 1805, so the French strength at the start of the campaign is their pre-Trafalger strength.

The French lost many ships during the revolutionary period due to both combat and poor maintenance.

[pfnognoff]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The game is won or lost on land. Invading England isnt that
important. Even if you win, so what? beating England DOESNT
win the game. Although it would be nice England off its high horse.

Well, taking some money away from the coalition, does make life easier for France. On the continent, also, because Austria & Prussia depend on Britain.
You can also disband some of the British semi-guard infantry factors, or take a province or two, making recovery from this defeat quite dificult.