Army Maintenance

soapyfrog · Post by **soapyfrog** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:13 am

Now that's loooong odds. I'd say the French player lucked out or his opposition was either incompetant or not truly commited.

Pure attrition will usually finish the French in such a situation.

In our games, where all players are quite heavily experienced, Austria and Prussia can beat France without any outside aid except monetary support from GB in the first war about 40% of the time, and if Russia joins in France won't make it unless he manages to cut a deal and split the coalition.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:15 am

Well we shall soon know I suspect. At least I hope so =)

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:15 am

Originally posted by soapyfrog
Now that's loooong odds. I'd say the French player lucked out or his opposition was either incompetant or not truly commited.

Pure attrition will usually finish the French in such a situation.

In our games, where all players are quite heavily experienced, Austria and Prussia can beat France without any outside aid except monetary support from GB in the first war about 40% of the time, and if Russia joins in France won't make it unless he manages to cut a deal and split the coalition.

I have had the exact same experiences in my games. But, yes, I can't wait till the game comes out for real and we can begin to find out and test other players/other strategies.

Roads · Post by **Roads** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:32 pm

Originally posted by ryta1203

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.

But some countries can get quite enough VPs sitting near the middle and economically manipulating. Depending on the bids this can be a very attractive strategy, and can lead to monster garrisons. Now it behooves those countries that need the VPs to go whack anyone taking this approach periodically, or they will win by default. But I still think that a mechanism to restrain excessively large garrisons would be handy.

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:31 pm

Originally posted by Road's
But some countries can get quite enough VPs sitting near the middle and economically manipulating. Depending on the bids this can be a very attractive strategy, and can lead to monster garrisons. Now it behooves those countries that need the VPs to go whack anyone taking this approach periodically, or they will win by default. But I still think that a mechanism to restrain excessively large garrisons would be handy.

I agree, some countries can do this, but the countries that can aren't the ones with the big armies or big economies. France can not afford to do this, therefore, France should insure that building up garrisons will be difficult for most countries (Sp, Pr, Au).

Black Hat · Post by **Black Hat** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 4:51 am

France letting the Austria/Prussia get combined with the Russian early is just bad French play. As a French player it IS ALWAYS your goal to see and encourage Russian aims in Scandinavia, Maybe a New Polish Corp and that they get other warm weather ports. Turkey should be encouraged with $$$ and wealthy Italian provances. BECUASE if they don't take my gifts how do you keep the Brits from winning????

Yes the early central alliance is formitable, but they lack leaders. I mean, one good chit pull & Chuck and white coated masses are toaste.

I still recall fondly the look of horror. La Grand Armie pulls Assult, Austrian whiner boy pulls Cordon and then is mistified why a French player (in his right mind) would pull assult. Please force march your 20 factor army away, I do not need any more Austrian VPs. Do I take the pursuit in Gd factors or the Cav?:)

Then looking at the Prussian going, that is the first part of the double move.....

I'm going to rally miss chit pulls.

soapyfrog · Post by **soapyfrog** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:14 am

Our games invariably see the Austrians and Prussians combine into a single stack immediately.

In our CURRENT game, I had the misfortune of playing France and facing a Austrian/Prussian/Russian/Spanish coalition right at the start...

This occured because the British player gave Denmark to Russia, and committed his entire starting army to Spain.

Boy did he regret THAT later!

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 9:26 am

Originally posted by Black Hat

Then looking at the Prussian going, that is the first part of the double move.....

I'm going to rally miss chit pulls.

If the prussian and austrian players don't combine right away and begin to not trust each other, than they deserve to lose. Not saying that they cannot stray from their alliance, but saying that they cannot stray from it right away.

GB should have a big hand in pulling Russia in on the coalition, at first anyways. If GB is stingy with the cash, then he, also, deserves to lose.

I have played a lot of games where where there were only 5 or 6 of us and we used the combined Pr/Au player option (one person playing both of them and combined VP). I don't like this option (anymore), however, it does prove a lot about how France can actually be repeatedly beaten.

Certainly most of these posts begin to touch base on strategy, player experience, and other things that are intangible up to the point of play. Saying that, these scenarios we have all posted could go that way, or not, or another way, who knows. Man, I love playing EiA. I miss it. Haven't played in over 2 years. Can't wait for the computer version.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:32 pm

It is a good point to raise...if you use the command control
rules and you stack the Austrians and Prussians and Russians
in one spot.....Your command structure will suck.
However...you will inflict a great many losses on the French.

I dont see how you will win, however.

soapyfrog · Post by **soapyfrog** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:48 pm

By reducing the French army to flaming wreckage and sitting on Paris.

And if Austria, Prussia and Russia get all their corps together they can move in two stacks and the attrition will still be too much for France.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:23 pm

Originally posted by soapyfrog
By reducing the French army to flaming wreckage and sitting on Paris.

And if Austria, Prussia and Russia get all their corps together they can move in two stacks and the attrition will still be too much for France.

I dont know....+2 on his die roll and -2 on yours kinda hurts.

soapyfrog · Post by **soapyfrog** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:33 pm

Ah *I* see the problem...

You can't modify your combat dice by more than +/- 1.

+2/-2 that would be NICE!!!

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:38 pm

Originally posted by Chiteng
It is a good point to raise...if you use the command control
rules and you stack the Austrians and Prussians and Russians
in one spot.....Your command structure will suck.
However...you will inflict a great many losses on the French.

I dont see how you will win, however.

I don't think I have ever played an EiA game without that option. Stacking not only allows you to utilize Prussian cav with Austrain Inf with GB morale mixed in, but also to reduce the amount of PP lost and maximize the amount of PP won. This is a wonderful option for the coalition. So, when France wins, say there is a stack with 2 GB Corps, 2 Au corps and 2 Pr corps, then France wins 3 PP and Gb loses 1, Au loses 1, and Pr loses 1. On the other hand if France loses a battle and has 6 corps present, then France loses 3 PP, and GB wins 3, Pr wins 3, Au wins 3. The game is about one simple fact: Victory points via Political Points. Using this stacking allows Au, Pr, and GB to lose more battles than France yet be able to stay out of the instability zone. I love this rule. Makes things difficult for the French.

soapyfrog · Post by **soapyfrog** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:43 pm

Absolutely you hit the nail on the head... combined stacks are vital to fight France.

DodgyDave · Post by **DodgyDave** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 1:56 pm

I have to disagree here, it can be sorted in a simple way, simply limit how many corps you can have in a spot and only allow reinforcement to add over it.

Solution means, you can have 4 corps, even without a leader there in each sector, but if you got a good leader like Napoleon or someone else, who have a corps rating of 5 or 6, then can they control that many in a sector, because they got the command staff to support it.

What this means, is that France have Napoleon with 6 corps and can be reinforced by another 4 or so, depending on what he plans, but since France will be rather limited in number of armies (i call 2 to 4 corps in the same place that) then do he have to make use of those good corps and leaders.

Stack wars will not be needed, because now Prussia will become more powerful on its own, those lovely corps with 3 cav each, will suddenly even without leaders be alot, 12 cav same sector from 4 corps, take France, 4 corps will only match Prussia and Prussia have 2 armies of this and with rest, perhaps Saxen, they can have a third army, vs France´s 5 to 6 armies.

Now you add Austria, it also have 4 armies, while not as heavy on cav, they can use their cav corps to generally end up in a fight of leaders, but total does the alliance have up to 1 army of 4 corps more then france do, if england get involved, then will it be harder for france.

This will eliminate the stack monster problem, which i see as a problem, first year france wiped out, well game over, lets begin a new game, have become very annoying to play.

So just a control over how many corps can be used per sector and on how many a leader can control would be nice and help game alot.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:07 pm

Originally posted by DodgyDave
I have to disagree here, it can be sorted in a simple way, simply limit how many corps you can have in a spot and only allow reinforcement to add over it.

Solution means, you can have 4 corps, even without a leader there in each sector, but if you got a good leader like Napoleon or someone else, who have a corps rating of 5 or 6, then can they control that many in a sector, because they got the command staff to support it.

What this means, is that France have Napoleon with 6 corps and can be reinforced by another 4 or so, depending on what he plans, but since France will be rather limited in number of armies (i call 2 to 4 corps in the same place that) then do he have to make use of those good corps and leaders.

Stack wars will not be needed, because now Prussia will become more powerful on its own, those lovely corps with 3 cav each, will suddenly even without leaders be alot, 12 cav same sector from 4 corps, take France, 4 corps will only match Prussia and Prussia have 2 armies of this and with rest, perhaps Saxen, they can have a third army, vs France´s 5 to 6 armies.

Now you add Austria, it also have 4 armies, while not as heavy on cav, they can use their cav corps to generally end up in a fight of leaders, but total does the alliance have up to 1 army of 4 corps more then france do, if england get involved, then will it be harder for france.

This will eliminate the stack monster problem, which i see as a problem, first year france wiped out, well game over, lets begin a new game, have become very annoying to play.

So just a control over how many corps can be used per sector and on how many a leader can control would be nice and help game alot.

France can still win w/o Nappy and after a defeat. Your French players were simply spoiled.
It is just HARDER.

In fact in some ways its easier. A well timmed surrender can
leave most of France intact AND preserve its dominance.

Then everyone goes after England.

Khi · Post by **Khi** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:15 pm

A well-timed surrender can leave most of France intact AND preserve its dominance.

I absolutely agree. Surrenders are a vital tool in a 'Balance of Power' game. I get the impression that a lot of players are missing out on how to use them. A large part of Empires in Arms is "playing for the NEXT war."

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:43 pm

Originally posted by Chiteng
France can still win w/o Nappy and after a defeat. Your French players were simply spoiled.
It is just HARDER.

In fact in some ways its easier. A well timmed surrender can
leave most of France intact AND preserve its dominance.

Then everyone goes after England.

I have to agree with Chiteng on this one. I think a well timed early surrender (before France really lets everyone know how many factors they are losing) allows France time to build back up without losing too much and gives France time to use diplomacy to help it's cause. Also, Napoleon is great to have, but the French have so many other great leaders that he is not needed, just preferred, although I would not give up Nap in a surrender unless absolutely necessary.

Reknoy · Post by **Reknoy** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 10:13 pm

It is absolutely true that the art of the surrender is as important (if not more) than the art of war in EiA.

J Hutton · Post by **J Hutton** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:30 am

The point first made in this thread was well made, but the discussion has become a wee bit distracted. To repeat the issue: a problem can develop where countries build overly-large armies and garrisons, and these are not historical. This problem does not develop in many games, but it does develop.

Therefore, there should be some mechanism of army maintenance that places limits on manpower. The Matrixgames EIA project, while developing a "true to the original" version of the game, should also expand to improve on the original.

What then should the mechanism be? I like the idea of built-in costs for total factors over and above a certain limit, as proposed earlier. You would have to do calculations as to what a full set of corps contained (including naval) for each nation, and relate this to the manpower value of the country, etc., in some way. It should not be a simple numbers game applicable to everyone.

Has anyone done the maths? Is it part of EIH?

There is also a historical question that would require answering - what in fact were the highest numbers of men under arms in the period? And despite the enormous armies of 1812-13, I have a suspicion that nations placed considerably more manpower into garrison in the home nation, or had it manning supply lines or depots in the field, than is really represented by EIA corp factors and the way EIA tends to be played. Both total army size and historical battlefield numbers would have to be treated with caution, therefore.

Cheers,

John.