Committing The Guard?

[Marshall Ellis]

Pretty simple:

For PBEM them computer is handling guard commit, casualty selection, etc for the non-phasing player at this point!
Hot seat is easy ... you will each have buttons to perform the guard commitment.

Thank you

[ardilla]

Sorry Marshall, I dont understand very well the way it will work out PBEM.
About what your explained with the Guard committing....

Could you explain easily how will be handle a complete turn with a battle in a PBEM without economic phase?
1)Movement
2)Calculation of $ for food and foraging.
3)Select chit and guard commitment?!?!?! But this should be a decition in the middle of the battle....not at the beggining....
4)Finish and send the final turn to all players and the answer for battle to the defender??

Thank you very mucho [;)]

[Ozie]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Pretty simple:

For PBEM them computer is handling guard commit, casualty selection, etc for the non-phasing player at this point!
Hot seat is easy ... you will each have buttons to perform the guard commitment.

Thank you

But since there are very diffrent kinds of attitudes of using guards is there any way to influence the computer decisions?

For example player A might want to use guards almost in every battle while player B uses them very sparingly. Is computer going to use both of these players guard units in similiar fasion or do the players get a say how their precious guards should be used?

[ardilla]

Good question Ozie, that is what I was trying to find out.

Because, I usually use the guards when doesnt matter what it is the result of the other player next roll is going to break me or when I find out than after next roll we probably will be drawn unless I have a chance to win the battle with the commit.

It is complicated, because it is a "real time" battle decision...and not a "random" computer decision, depends a lot of how is going the battle after 1 and mostly 2 rounds of battle!!!!

[Camile Desmoulins]

There is a dangerous trick with the guard in pbem board games. Some playes commit the guard in some negative combination of chits (v.g.: Escalated assault vs. extended line) in the first combat turn for end the combat soon to avoid suffer too much losses. In the first turn the guard losses are very little or none. I don´t like this trick, because it´s unhistorical, nobody commited the guard in the start of the battle, this maneouver was the coup de grace of the enemy army, not a screen to withdraw, this was the role of the light cavalry and infantery

If the dessigners forbid the use of the guard in the first combat turn, avoid easy this trick
[&o]

[Titi]

There is a dangerous trick with the guard in pbem board games. Some playes commit the guard in some negative combination of chits (v.g.: Escalated assault vs. extended line) in the first combat turn for end the combat soon to avoid suffer too much losses. In the first turn the guard losses are very little or none. I don´t like this trick, because it´s unhistorical, nobody commited the guard in the start of the battle, this maneouver was the coup de grace of the enemy army, not a screen to withdraw, this was the role of the light cavalry and infantery

In fact it's in fine the power of a leader seeing that the day is lost. Trying by one way or another to stop the killing of your army as early as possible and hoping having better luck (or strategy [:D]) next time. But for a next time, you need to still have an army. Having chosen a bad shit you try to save what you can by engaging the guard early and making some more damage to the enemy morale, knowing that maybe it will be an early retreat after.

And after if you fail, the cavalry will pay a high price for it cause a pursuit in the first round can cost even more than a full day of carnage.

So at the end, the guard and cavalry will pay for saving the common grognards, the kind of defeat that some nation can't afford (spain, turkish or britain with no guard) some barely (prussia for the cost of cavalry, austria for the number of cavalry per corp) and even the most powerful (france and russia) will try to avoid cause you can afford it twice.

Commiting the guard is a choice, not a winner one, but a least worse one and i don't see the need to forbid it completely.

[meyerg]

I agree. This is a TRICK, not a feature. After committing the guard you can punish someone proportional to the number of morale left to break your opponent. With this TRICK, after committing the guard, the opponent may still have 3.0+ morale left. Make the person committing the guard lose one full CAV (or equivalent in pursuit losses) for EACH .1 or .2 he is short in breaking the opponent and he will not play this TRICK without consequences.
I have seen the Turkish defeat Russian (unconditional peace) and proceed to go after a France that is picking on a pounded Russia. "Only I can pound on Russia!" He jumps France and picks an outflank vs defend. When the mondo outflanking force arrives, Napolean's army is eliminated and Napolean captured (with high die rolls of course). If Napolean had used the LOOPHOLE mentioned above (he pointed it out but had the honor not to use it) on turn 1, we never would have seen the Turks capture Napolean.
Historically, Napolean was quite adverse to committing his guard, even to follow up a breakthrough.
greg

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

Had to chime in on this one because it does look like a trick??? I will do some sims and see what the outcomes are??? Haven't seen the AI do this yet??? Does anybdoy have any tales of actual abuse of this trick? I've been all ove the web and conventions and this is the first I've heard of this??????

Thank you

[meyerg]

While we are talking about tricks. How about this TRICK. Player A and B are really beating up player C. Player C has his buddies D and E declare war on him so 1) he can unconditionally surrender to them to to give them the same PP gain player A and B earned without additional cost to him and 2) they can shelter him from some of the peace terms.

[fjbn]

Austria Grenadier Corps has 5 Guard/2 Cab, not 1 Cab.

On the other side, Guard comittment has other uttilities, if you know you are going to break and you suposse the pursuit willbe horrible, comitting the gurd menas a great increase of your enemy's morale loss and so a lighter cavalry pursuit. Maybe you are exchanging guard loses avoiding Cavalry loses, but this is a good trade, because Cavalry is more expensive.

[eg0master]

I'm not sure I think any of the two described "tricks" actually are tricks...

For the "friends declare war to protect me in the peace conditions"-trick I think that is just fine. That can't be such a big problem. If the friends declare war the "real enemies" will have been at war with the defeated MP for a longer period of time and hence they get to choose victory conditions first. So the actual gain is not that big. So in practice I doubt that is a problem at all.

As for the turn 1 guard commitment - If a player has the ability to see he is loosing and hence commits the guard to reduce losses that just seams like good playing. And probably something testet when EiA was first play tested. If this feels like a problem maybe commiting the guard can be a "tactical thing": In order to commit the guard you have to roll less or equal of your leader tactical rating. You get a bonus for each "commit roll" that will break the enemy, i.e. if you break your enemy for sure you get a +6 bonus to your tactical rating (which means the guards are always commited) and if you have 50-50 chance you get +3 and if no chance you get no bonus. This would mean good leaders might use this exploit while bad leaders don't have a very big chance to do it.

But frankly I think it is all well balanced... If you commit your guards when you cannot win - you loose PP but save a few troops. Just means guards are extra insurance and adds balance to the game. [;)]

[mattbirra]

yeah, its like sacrifice guard to give army time to retreat, by holding the back of the retreat army.
Why not ?????

[fjbn]

Many people talks about guard and its benefits in morale to an army, and its true, but cavalry is much more important and expensive. If you see that you are going to lose a battle with many factors each side (napo vs Charles, for example) and maybe you will lose 8 cavalry factors in pursuit, you will comit the guard because the same dice roll means an increase of 0'5-0'8 morale loss for your opponent. This means maybe to lose 2-3 cavalry factors less. This is very important. You can afford as Prusia the loss of 2 Guard, but you will take many time to replace 3 Cavalry factors.

[Hoche]

I don't see a problem with committing guard on the first round. Seem like good gamesmenhip to me.

[fjbn]

This is a very especific case, basically your enemy's army must be composed of militia or feudal infantry, because I don´t remember that you can make a -3.0 morale loss in first round, maybe only against Turks, not the other powers

[eg0master]

ORIGINAL: fjbn

This is a very especific case, basically your enemy's army must be composed of militia or feudal infantry, because I don´t remember that you can make a -3.0 morale loss in first round, maybe only against Turks, not the other powers

But it is possible to commit guards even when you know you will not break the enemy, right? I quickly went through the guard commitment rules and find nothing restricting when (more than once a day) you may commit the guards. Isn't the whole point of the "loophole" that you know you will loose early because you fear the 2nd and 3rd round?

But still my opinion is that this is ok.

[fjbn]

Ok, but in this case its better to wait to the second round take the losses ininfantry and commit the guard in second round, because the morale loss of your enemy will be bigger ans so the pursuit will be less efectiva. I prefer lo lose 10 infantry factors than 3 Cavalry, it´s cheaper.

[eg0master]

I agree... seams most people lately think the "loophole" is ok to use.

[meyerg]

You mean OK to use if you can use guard commitment. Some countries cannot.
I think this trick wouldn't be abused so much if you had pay one additional CAV (or equivalent in pursuit losses) factor for every .2 morale the enemy had left to cover your retreat after committing the guard.
So you are saying that countries without guard commitment may have to fight up to three rounds of battle after pulling a bad chit, but countries with guard commitment should be able to bail after one. I don't think anyone can convince me this is 1) fair or 2) historical. If you look at my previous example, this trick would have kept the French from rightfully losing Napolean to an aggressive Turk.
How does committing the guard give the rest of your troops additional properties of escape they didn't have before. I say additional, because without this rule, they have to wait for the next round of battle.

[eg0master]

First of all it is a game based on history - not a historical simulation. If all things are not historical - so be it.
Each part of the game represents something and in the end it is all about balance. For example in the original rules not everybody is allowed to commit guards even if they have them. And the "balance" in the game is not about fairness because in EiA you do not have 7 equal sides. you have 7 powers with different pros and cons.

And commiting the guards does not mean the rest of your troops get a better chance to escape - it makes them break because their idiot commander sends his guards to die with no chance to win so the main force breaks and flees. However the enemy having to face the guards are probably decimated so the other side also suffer "morale losses" due to the fact they are facing the fearsome guards.

And in your example napoleon could not "escape" a "rightful capture" because the game are designed (for balance) in a way so that he may commit the guards in order to break his men early and not face the slaughter of an outflank. Only a slaughter of a pursuit.

Countries able to commit their guards more or less are allowed to do this to different extent probably due to balance. France would face a harder game if everybody could use this exploit. And france is an even worse opponent because he may use this. it might not be "fair" but I still see this as balanced.

The historical accuracy does not interest me that much, but that is just me. And anyone wishing to play a "historical" EiA may do so simply by all agreeing not to use this exploit.