Army Maintenance

[danton]

Gentlemen

Like everyone on this forum I look forward to seeing this great game make the transition from cardboard to motherboard.

However there is one problem in the old game of EiA that really bugged me.

The problem I am refering to is the almost limitless quantity of infantry that players are allowed to build in the standard game, even after all corps are full.

In many of the games I have participated over the last couple of decades it was far from unusual for players of major states to keep building up their forces to levels way beyond any state of that time could support, with virtually no penalty other than the money and manpower that these troops cost. The result was often countries that finally went to war with every corps full and every town garrisoned to the max.

Perhaps Im being too picky but no country in this era could afford to keep building up its armed forces on the scale that is possible in EiA. If anything most states reduced their military establishments in peacetime in order to avoid bankruptcy.

Does anyone else see this as a problem?

Regards

Danton

[pfnognoff]

If the optional rule of militia conversion is in play, then you just build up your militia garrisons, without paying maintenance. Then 3 months before going to war you just pick them up and convert into regulars.
With this you take away from the Prussians their only advantage, saving manpower.

[Pippin]

Look at it this time... desperate times means despereate measures. However, I do understand your pain

BTW, if you think that is a problem in EIA, have you ever taken a look at Axis&Allies? Same problem. To make things worse, an Industry on Egypt for example, which only makes 2 IPCs a turn, can get stratbombed for 60 ipcs on a Jap raid every time. How is that possible?

[wieschi]

I had the same problem in a further campaign.

We solved this problem (yes, it is a problem) on this way:

maintenance for garrisons is paid in every economic phase
1$ for every 10.000 up to 50.000
2$ up to 80.000
3$ from 100.000

When you have 75.000 for example you have to pay:
5$ for the first 50.000 and 6$ for the next 25.000

Together 11$

It would be nice when I can see a rule simmilar to this, in an otpion for the PC version. But I don`t think so.

(We never play with militia conversion. pfnognoff said the reason)

[Chiteng]

The solution is to FIGHT.

[mmurray821]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The solution is to FIGHT.

Um..... that sounds like you would be losing a lot to get rid of a lot of factors.

Sounds good if my country is at war with you

[soapyfrog]

Maintenance relative to army size would certainly be an excellent addition to the game. A manpower cap might be good too. I would think something along the lines of a manpower "pool:... would be a pretty drastic change though.

Although I have not seen a game where anyone's army grew to out of control in a long time. Usually warfare takes it's toll before the army sizes get too obscene.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by mmurray821
Um..... that sounds like you would be losing a lot to get rid of a lot of factors.

Sounds good if my country is at war with you

No the game is predicated on the idea that there WILL be wars.
It is the absence of conflict that allows people to build to such excess. The solution then is to FIGHT.

The reality is that the classes if NOT used for war, would be returned to the private sector and boost the economy.
This isnt modeled inthe game very well.

[Le Tondu]

Building up armies beyond realistic sizes??? And the only solution that can be offered is to fight??? How do you feed and clothe them?

I'm sorry, but something more needs to be offered as a fix for this because ths needs to be fixed. The reason I say this is that unhistorical qualities in a historical game like this (that has such great efforts to keep it historical) really ruins a game. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I see it as nearly the same thing as giving modern weapons like strategic bombers to each side and still calling it Napoleonic. It doesn't take someone with a degree in rule lawyering to see that it just doesn't wash.

Thank you danton for bringing this up.

Maybe a solution for this is to have desertion rates quadruple when it happens. I don't care what army or time it is. If you can't feed an army, they aren't gonna stick around and just starve to death.

OR increasing the cost of maintenance of an army when it gets to such ridiculous sizes might be an answer.

Lastly, if such titanic efforts are made elsewhere to keep EiA historical, this is one issue that really should not be passed over.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
Building up armies beyond realistic sizes??? And the only solution that can be offered is to fight??? How do you feed and clothe them?

I'm sorry, but something more needs to be offered as a fix for this because ths needs to be fixed. The reason I say this is that unhistorical qualities in a historical game like this (that has such great efforts to keep it historical) really ruins a game. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I see it as nearly the same thing as giving modern weapons like strategic bombers to each side and still calling it Napoleonic. It doesn't take someone with a degree in rule lawyering to see that it just doesn't wash.

Thank you danton for bringing this up.

Maybe a solution for this is to have desertion rates quadruple when it happens. I don't care what army or time it is. If you can't feed an army, they aren't gonna stick around and just starve to death.

OR increasing the cost of maintenance of an army when it gets to such ridiculous sizes might be an answer.

Lastly, if such titanic efforts are made elsewhere to keep EiA historical, this is one issue that really should not be passed over.

If we did increase desertion as you suggest, then the Brits and French will dominate even MORE than they do now.

Possibly rewarding returning men to the private sector is a better
choice.

[Roads]

I'd just add a multiplicative factor for your manpower based on how many garrisons are in place. For instance (not exect numbers of course)
0-20: receive 100% manpower
20-40: recieve 90% manpower
40-60: receive 80% manpower
60-80: recieve 70% manpower
80-100: recieve 60% manpower
and so on.

Alternatively (and perhaps more sensibly) it could be based on the ratio of garrisons to the total strength of all the countries corps, although in this case you'd have to work out what to do about the Turks I suppose.

[Supervisor]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never encountered this in a game, other than the Turks being full at wartime, but with France's Financial help, that doesn't take much. For France to wait for Austria and Prussia to have full Corps is not usually advantegous, and vice versa, depending on the situation. In almost all the reg EiA games I played, Austria and Prussia were hardcore till death allies, and on occasion would declare war on France before the game started and also be allied before game started. France has less factors than Austra+Prussia at the start of the game.

ps. You don't get Political Points by sitting around, and therefore, you gon't get VP. You have to remember that all countries slide toward the middle on the PP/VP chart. Hope this helps.

[Khi]

Possibly rewarding returning men to the private sector is a better choice.

...which is already abstractly simulated in the game with Economic Manipulation, and one reason why my group ALWAYS plays with the option. (Our group also never plays with militia conversion because of the reasons pfnognoff mentioned.)

If the nation is spending money/manpower on military, they lose out on the political points, and the tied in victory points as well. It's a choice the player makes- to be 'prepared' for the war they see as inevitable, or to cash out some of their peace-time into victory points that are never lost.

For one game, our group tried a house rule to address this issue- specifically the large garrisoning in cities, which don't require any maintenance. We applied a "half-siege" for any force serving garrison duty (as if under siege, with less effect). It was the ultimate in tedious pointlessness.

Our experience has been that knowledgable players and your basic "Balance of Power" takes care of this 'problem' intrinsically. See one of your neighbor building up too strongly? Talk to some of his other neighbors, and come to an agreement that if Austria (for example) doesn't voluntarily stand down some of her troops...

[Chiteng]

I ma sorry but I have played this game MANY times, and I can tell you right now, that anything that enhances attrition
(ie less men in the field) will tilt the game towards the players that
CAN pay. France and Britain and to some extent Russia.

If France need not fear attrition to the hordes in the East,
he WONT fear them. That will be bad.

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by Khi
...

Our experience has been that knowledgable players and your basic "Balance of Power" takes care of this 'problem' intrinsically. See one of your neighbor building up too strongly? Talk to some of his other neighbors, and come to an agreement that if Austria (for example) doesn't voluntarily stand down some of her troops...

This is the solution, and (in most games with good, experienced players that have actually finished a game), the problem of "massing" does take care of itself intrinsically.

I agree with you completely on this one. Balancing of Power is usually how the game should be played.

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I ma sorry but I have played this game MANY times, and I can tell you right now, that anything that enhances attrition
(ie less men in the field) will tilt the game towards the players that
CAN pay. France and Britain and to some extent Russia.

If France need not fear attrition to the hordes in the East,
he WONT fear them. That will be bad.

This is true providing there are no alliances, no allied wars, no call to arms, etc, etc. France can not outproduce Austria+Prussia+GB. But if these players are silly enough to think they can beat France by themselves and play EiA like this, then yes, attrition lends to the greater powers. However, host games have/should have alliances, 2v1, 3v1, 3v2, 4v2, etc, etc. These combinations to differ and change according to the game and time in the game, and of course some other outside influences.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by ryta1203
This is true providing there are no alliances, no allied wars, no call to arms, etc, etc. France can not outproduce Austria+Prussia+GB. But if these players are silly enough to think they can beat France by themselves and play EiA like this, then yes, attrition lends to the greater powers. However, host games have/should have alliances, 2v1, 3v1, 3v2, 4v2, etc, etc. These combinations to differ and change according to the game and time in the game, and of course some other outside influences.

I have seen good play by the French beat England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia ALONE. England ran like a scared dog back to their little island.

So dont tell me it would be harder for France to do that,
if he faced LESS allied troops. That boat dont float.

I have also seen the issue come down to ONE battle,
and it was a **** close thing. W/o the spare troops, France would have won, instead of being defeated.

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I have seen good play by the French beat England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia ALONE. England ran like a scared dog back to their little island.

So dont tell me it would be harder for France to do that,
if he faced LESS allied troops. That boat dont float.

It sounds as though you were playing with either poor players, or players who did not trust one another at all, it's EiA, not Diplomacy. How would he ever face less allied troops in the first war? The coalition must win the first war, and EVERYONE knows it, so that is not too much of a problem, France should expect to lose that one. How France could ever have more troops GB, RUSSIA, PRUSSIA and AUSTRIA at one time is beyond me.

In that game, were the coalition using integrated stacks to help reduce PP? I just find your story hard to believe, sorry.

However, I seriously don't want to get into a heated argument about it. So ok, you are right, Im sorry.

[Supervisor]

Edited out

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by ryta1203
It sounds as though you were playing with either poor players, or players who did not trust one another at all, it's EiA, not Diplomacy. How would he ever face less allied troops in the first war? The coalition must win the first war, and EVERYONE knows it, so that is not too much of a problem, France should expect to lose that one. How France could ever have more troops GB, RUSSIA, PRUSSIA and AUSTRIA at one time is beyond me.

In that game, were the coalition using integrated stacks to help reduce PP? I just find your story hard to believe, sorry.

However, I seriously don't want to get into a heated argument about it. So ok, you are right, Im sorry.

I didnt say he had more troops. I said he won. Not the same thing at all. He was outnumbered I think 3.5 to one.
But he still won.