Economic Phase and OOB

[Titi]

Another point about the relative lack of secret is that each time a corp forage and lose one or more factor(s) on the map, the other players just learn which one it s and it's strength because you must remove publicaly the factor from your national chart . (public information following the original rules).

It's why we used to keep those national and econimic sheets hidden, but thinking about it twice, some spy can find evidence of the corps presence and strength by speaking with those "deserteurs" around a beer or wine bottle[:D]

[oahunick]

The National Cards and Purchase Cards are officially public Knowledge. The only thing a EiA player has to work with (as far as bluffing) is the Corp counters. THAT'S WHY ROWLAND IDENTIFIED THEM ON THE BACK. (As opposed to Naval counters) People, you may have played otherwise, but not being able to read the back of a Corps counter is where the fog of war begins and ends.

I hope Matrix sticks with official doctrine ... half the fun was watching and monitoring Russia's purchase plan filled with 3 ships when they just allied up with Spain and GB!!

Brit player: Hey, you don't need to buy that Russia??!!
Russian player: Well an extra few ships can't hurt right??
Brit player: hey Spain, any aversion to sailing your fleet to the Baltic with me???

Anyways I'm not going to debate which way is more enjoyable - just hoping Matrix stays true to the "spirit of the law" even though 2.4.2 is weak as "the letter of the law".

Take care everyone.

[ardilla]

Well, I had read all the comments and I have to tell you that me and my buddies we never played with public accounts.

Only, in our actual game, we agree to play with public corps streght, but, seriously, we are dissapointed.

Was more fun when it was also hidden.

I can not understand a game with public accounting and production, other than to avoid "mistakes" or cheats.

What about those secret loans of money from one country to another???

Anyway, this is just a game and since all players agree with a way of playing that is fine.

So I expect that MG allows us to vote this "grey rules" and other options before the start of the game and if possible before the bidding whenever this is available with the PC game.

Regards.

[oahunick]

I'm actually hoping Matrix does not offer the public/secret choice on CEiA. I don't want the glorious legacy of EiA tarnished by these so called "options".

It's like what happened to boxing years ago. Now you have the IBF champion, the WBA champ, and the WBC champ.

Example: Player #1 - Hey, I'm a first rate EiA "public knowledge" player.
Player #2 - That's great, but I only play "secret" rules and I am an EiA master!!
Player #1 - Well I won't play you and risk losing my status as a great "public knowledge" player

EiA does not need this stuff. Fragmenting the rules hurts us all.

Some people love 7-card stud or Texas Hold'em with most of the cards "on the table" = "public knowledge player"

Others like 5 card draw where opponents can not see any of your hand = "secret national card player"

But lets not turn EiA into a poker or boxing where there are "specialists" at one genre or another!!

Matrix - Don't let let it happen.

Take care everyone

[Murat]

[ 1.5 ] THE NATIONAL CARDS: The seven National Cards for the major powers have two sides, and players may use either side in a game, as desired. Side one is used with small garrison/strength counters to record the strengths of corps and fleets and with economic manipulation markers for economic manipulation (see option 12.5) and is recommended for use with the scenarios. Side two must be copied, with pencils and erasers used to record and modify necessary information and is recommended for use with the campaign games. The card for the minor countries also has two sides. Side one is used to record the strengths of corps and fleets the same as the major power cards' side one, while side two has forms for use with option 12.6 and must be copied (numerous copies needed) and cut up for use. If side two of the major power's national cards are used side one of the Minor Country National Card is not needed as strengths can be recorded on the major powers' copies of side two.

2.4.2 USING THE NATIONAL CARDS: The maximum strengths of corps and fleets are shown on the appropriate National Cards (one card per major power, and one for all of the minor countries). The corps and fleet counters when face-up on the map only show their general type and movement allowance. Which corps each counter represents is shown on the back of the counter and may be examined by only the owning player, except when its identity must be revealed to other players (e.g., during a combat-see 7.5.2.6.3). The designation of each fleet (and its movement allowance) is shown on the front of the counter and so its designation and exact strength should always be known to all players.

2.4.2.1 USING SIDE ONE OF THE NATIONAL CARDS: Side one of each National Card contains spaces for indicating the strength of every corps and fleet of that major power or of the minor countries.

2.4.2. 1. 1 Showing Strengths: The number in each box indicates the maximum number of ships or army factors of that type that that corps or fleet may contain. The current strength of a corps is shown by the placement of garrison/strength counters in the appropriate boxes. For this purpose, use any national or neutral infantry or militia garrison/strength counter or counters. The counters used can be of any type or nationality, as it is their strength and the box they occupy that determine their effect and what they represent. For example, a French militia counter of "3 "factors in a Russian cavalry box acts as "3 " cavalry factors, not as militia. These factors are also interchangeable (e.g., a "2" and a "1 " factor counters can be exchanged for a "3" factor counter, etc.), as with the garrison strengths (see 2.4. 1). Note that most corps for most major powers allow for a maximum number of regular infantry and/or militia factors plus an additional number of cavalry factors (plus an additional number of guard factors in some cases).

2.4.2.1.2 Altering Strengths: The current strength of a corps or fleet is altered as strengths vary (e.g., because of swapping factors between corps, combat losses, foraging losses, garrison detachments, etc.) by changing the number of factors in the appropriate boxes of that corps or fleet.

2.4.2.1.3 Economic Manipulation (Optional): If option 12.5 is used, the major power's economic manipulation markers should be initially placed in the "O" boxes of their ECONOMIC MANIPULATION DISPLAYS.

2.4.2.2 USING SIDE TWO OF THE NATIONAL CARDS: Side two of the major power National Cards is recommended for campaign games because most garrison/strength counters will be required to show garrisons and also because other sections are handy for maintaining economic and reinforcement records for both the major powers and their controlled minor free states. This side of the cards should be photocopied and used simply by penciling in information and erasing as changes are made.

2.4.2.2.1: Corps and fleet strengths for both the major power and its controlled minor free states can be penciled in and erased and adjusted as necessary.

2.4.2.2.2: Money expenditures between Economic Phases, prisoners, etc. can be recorded on any free space on the copies.

2.4.2.2.3: Economic manipulation (see option 12.5) is recorded as part of the ECONOMIC AND MANPOWER WORKSHEET on side two plus using the ECONOMIC MANIPULATION DISPLAYS on side one.

OK.... 1.5 says it is the PLAYER'S option on how they wish to record their information; 2.4.2 only discusses FLEET STRENGTHS as something that SHOULD be known (not MUST be known); 2.4.2.2 RECOMMENDS using side two; soo....

technically the rules do not REQUIRE anything to be revealed by a player and IMPLY only that fleet strengths be known. IF this sounds to legalese keep in mind the numbering system IS English Legal and as with all rules, if it is not discussed and need interpretation then you need some way to resolve conflicts, no EiA Court exists, but there is:

[ 10.8 ] SETTLING DISPUTES: Although it is pointed out in numerous places throughout the rules that major powers with conflicting and equal claims may settle their disputes through mutual agreement or through competitive die, rolls (sometimes modified), other cases can arise that are not mentioned elsewhere. In all these cases, if a mutual agreement cannot be reached, let unmodified competitive die rolls decide. for example, if leaders or army factors are captured by mixed forces controlled by more than one major power, the control over the "prisoners " can be decided by mutual agreement or, if agreement cannot be reached, by competitive die rolls (roll for each factor or leader over which there is a disagreement).

As for there being a fog of war option, there is much less stragtegy to a game when you know what units are where and how strong each is. If I wanted a simple war game, I would not be playing EiA. To not have a fog of war option would be a disservice IMHO (unless of course fog of war was standard and there was no way to turn it off, then such an option would be moot). [:D]

[ardilla]

Well, I am sorry Oahunick, but I hope Matrix let it happen.

With the options we can choose and nothing is close, like in the rules is not clear, let it be like this.

I will play with all options as i will with all countries, If I can at the same time [:'(]

I agree that you should inform your player mates how many ships are you building and where, because it takes a year, many people and it is imposible to hide, at that time was know by everybody, so it is kind of realistic.

But, with you manpower it is different, you just call or recruit people, make guns, cannons or buy horses.
And, of course, about everybody knowing how much money has left other player makes not sense at all.
Also, takes only 3 months to make inf, so even if it was know, when the spy arrives to Moscow, for example it is already out the infantry!!!

Even at Risk you dont know what cards your enemy has!!!

It is not like poker, everything hidding, but your money and what you do with it, besides ships, should be private.

OK, some people do not do it because of cheating or mistakes, but with the CEiA this will be solved.

For example, a real one.
Our present game of EiA, AU was at war with TU and FR was waiting to go over AU and make the war between them long and bloody, so FR without beeing at war with AU, gave money to TU to help.
If this is public, as many other things like this, I personally think that the game will losse a lot.

BUT, with options you can play with other players as you want, and do not worry about ratings, there will be always first and second class players [8|] and you can win or losse, depending of your nation and what other people does!!

REgards.

[Manfred]

I used to play many games of EiA the last ten years, and we NEVER played with public sheets ! however, the ships buildings and the ships total for each nation were public.
I think that the game is way more interesting with these "home rules", knowing the buildings and the exact size & organisation of each army is a nonsense for me. I hope that CEiA will allow the fog of war.

[carnifex]

technically the rules do not REQUIRE anything to be revealed by a player and IMPLY only that fleet strengths be known.

You're taking the word "should" out of context. For the naval counters, it means "must".

4.6.3.2 ORDER OF SETUP: If the forces of a number of different minor countries all need to be set up, they should be set up by the controlling major powers in the order: France, Russia, Turkey, Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, Spain.

Do you think this implies that the forces should be set up in that order? No, it tells you that's the order you must do it.

[ 8.5 ] MONEY AND MANPOWER EXPENDITURE STEP: Money should be expended in the order that expenses are listed below.

Do you think the rules imply that you should spend your money in a certain order? No, it's a must that you pay off your formal debts before buying new forces.

[Murat]

Just using the definition of the word "should". "Should" means that is the usual path, but not the only or required one, whereas "must" means it is the only and required path. I did not invent English, nor did I write the rules, nor do I think the developers forsaw how their poor choice of words and editing would lead to big problems, but we can always let unmodified dice rolls decide [:D] Actually, in both of the rules you cited, we did NOT follow the order listed. Minor set-up was simultaneous and often very public since other players frequently suggest modified placements for better defense of the minors. As for money expenditure, you did not quote the whole section (which has a "must" AND a "should" in it):

[ 8.5 ] MONEY AND MANPOWER EXPENDITURE STEP: Money and manpower are used to pay expenses and for building/recruiting new ships and/or army (regular infantry and cavalry, militia, guard and/or artillery) factors. Minor free states pay their own maintenance, at the same rates. If the minor free state cannot pay, the major power controlling the minor free state must pay. Money should be expended in the order that expenses are listed below. Any major power that becomes "bankrupt" during 8.5.1 or 8.5.2 loses " - 3 " political points (immediately adjust the major power's political status marker on the POLITICAL STATUS DISPLAY)

and that particular "should", although careless, really is a default since:

3.0 SEQUENCE OF PLAY OF THE GAME


A "Turn" in EMPIRES IN ARMS represents one month of real time. Each Turn consists of a number of "phases" which may be further broken down into "steps. " Each phase or step is completed by all players before going to the next. Any phases or steps that do not apply during a Turn can be skipped. The sequence of a Turn (also given on the Game Card) is as follows:
.
.
.
[ 3.5 ] * THE ECONOMIC PHASE: See 8.0. This phase occurs
only every three months-at the end of the March, June, September
and December Turns. This phase is performed in steps as follows:
A. The Victory Points Step.
B. The Money and Manpower Collection Step.
C. The Lending Money Step.
D. The Manipulation Step.
E. The Money and Manpower Expenditure Step.
F. The Political Status Adjustment Step.
G. The Civil Disorder Step.
H. The Ceding Step.
I. The New Political Combinations Step (see options 11. I- 11. 6 and 11.8).
J. The Levy Step.
K. The UMP Control Step.

For speed we reduced this to a 4 phase econ system, which, while in order, involved doing several phases simulataneously (for example, we frequently would figure out what new factors we wanted and THEN see how much we wanted to throw into manipulation which is technically out of order but agreed to by all parties and thus in tune with 10.8):

1] Get VPs and adjust manipulation;
2] Collect money, negotiate and loan money between majors;
3] Set new manipulation, pay your costs and buy your stuff;
4] Politically adjust and hope you are not facing revolt [;)] while graciously handing out new offices to your relatives.

Keep in mind, 10.8 allows you to change ANYTHING that is not specific in the rules by mutual consent between the players (or unmodified die rolls of the competing sides). We have always held the "must" precludes a 10.8 change.

[carnifex]

For the minor country setup, you're not actually changing the rules, because if everyone is ok then who cares what order they are set up in? However, if someone is going to set up Naples based on how Venice sets up, then they are perfectly able to demand that Venice sets up first because the minors must follow a certain order.

And for the economic phase, you can do it in whatever order you like as long as the numbers work out, but you must pay your formal debts before buying new troops. If you use the "but not the only or required one" logic, well then you don't have to pay your debt because you just bought all this cavalry.

Even though both of the above say should, it's not really the preferred way, it's the only way.

Same thing with the fleet counters. If no one cares what they are and doesn't want to look, then fine, but if someone wants to see them, the opponent must show them (or should show them - same thing).

It's all splitting hairs really, anyway.

I am curious to see how all the vague spots in the printed rulebook get ironed out into the computer version. I know the original rules were vague enough to always provide nice fodder for all those despicable rules lawyers (like me), and now with them being set in stone I will find a small unhappy place in my heart where that bright fire of contention used to burn.

[Camile Desmoulins]

It is very important to follow the order in the economic phase conscientiously, because if important problems take place, certainly.

The question that I ask myself is if the Civil Disorder will allow or it will be considered as option. [&:]

[oahunick]

Ardilla:

Your opinion and choices on the National Cards is appreciated by myself. But I think you would be pulling your hair out trying to campaign in a "traditional" EiA playgroup.

We normally have classroom size dry-erase whiteboard with all Manpower and economic information readily available for scrutinization and evaluation. With the GM running this proverbial "big-board" there was actually no need for the individual sheets. Monitoring the "big-board" and guaging troop strength helped that 45 minutes we all face between turns move faster. But to the point - and I think

Carnifex had it spot on - public is the general rule for all wargames from A&A to EiA unless SPECIFIED.

You say you could play "traditional" as well as your house rules but I suspect you along with countless others would slowly fragment off into your own specialities.

Like you, I would want to try my hand at "secret, toal FOG o' War variants but my heart would clamor for the good old days of the busy war room with the "big-board" for all to see!!!
Here's to agreeing to disagree Ardilla .....
Let Matrix make one of us happy.

Take care everbody!

[ardilla]

Why MG should make only one of us happy?!?!?

Leave it like optional and make us all happy [:D] if the "traditional players" dont mind [;)]

I feel sorry if I bother all of you with this, but as I read, I and my playmates we are not the only ones we play that way.

Regards and let MG do their work, I will be happy with any of the ways they decided to implemented.

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: Murat

Just using the definition of the word "should". "Should" means that is the usual path, but not the only or required one, whereas "must" means it is the only and required path.

I suspect this may be a nasty little Americanism. The rules weren't written by people who use American English. The first entry of the OED for 'should' is:

used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness

interesting how 'obligation' comes first.

I firmly believe that the rules call for public strengths.

However, I also think that for a board game it made sense to have these things public due to issues of errors or cheating. However, once those problems are out of the picture it makes much more sense for the OOB cards to be private.

[Mark Breed]

No where do the rules indicate that players may examine the National Card of any other player. They indicate that the National Card should be laid beside the map. However, a player could, using the numeric counters, easily hide his strength by putting a "1" as the top counter of the strength for each infantry, cavalry, etc. of a corps. And, again, no where in the rules does it state that a player may examine the other players' National Card nor does it state that the strength must be revealed other than once a battle is fought.

So, tell me where in the rules does it say that a player's specific corps strength is known by all other players otherwise. Even the fleet strength is indicated as SHOULD be known because any player can see which specific fleet is on the map versus on the National Card.

Regards,
Mark

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Roads

ORIGINAL: Murat

Just using the definition of the word "should". "Should" means that is the usual path, but not the only or required one, whereas "must" means it is the only and required path.

I suspect this may be a nasty little Americanism. The rules weren't written by people who use American English. The first entry of the OED for 'should' is:

used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness

interesting how 'obligation' comes first.

I firmly believe that the rules call for public strengths.

However, I also think that for a board game it made sense to have these things public due to issues of errors or cheating. However, once those problems are out of the picture it makes much more sense for the OOB cards to be private.

Well, there was some selective editing of the OED entry but let everyone decide for themselves what "should" means:
http://www.onelook.com/

Like I said before, there is no "Court of EiA" so break out the die at the start of each game and see how you are playing.

[Roads]

Kind of harsh to call it selective editing - I said that it was the first entry, and that's exactly what the first entry says. Anyway, I do think there is a pretty big difference between British and American usage of 'should', and I'm sort of figuring that the Australians follow the Brits.

[oahunick]

Although there is no EiA court, the Official EiA mailing list (hundreds of diehards) came to consensus that the obvious intent was National Cards = public knowledge.

* Roll a die or draw straws for something so integral to the game?
* Let players vote on which method they want before an 1805 campaign?

This is EiA - not your rinky dink A&A "house game" that can be tinkered with.

I'm slowly beginning to see who is serious and committed to the integrity of the game - and who is not.

Leaving this massive rule (and I sympathathize with those who find the spirit of the rule as not fun and providing little FOG o' War) up to individuals will be the deathknell of the CEiA.

True or False? Please circle the correct answer:

Even if the public National Cards rule was in black and white and not inferred as it is now, many players would still say, "Hey, this is a dumb rule and it's more fun to play "secret".

T F

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: oahunick

This is EiA - not your rinky dink A&A "house game" that can be tinkered with.

Ummm....the game DEVELOPERS tinkered with it first when they modified the rules. Since then there have been MANY MANY tinkerings including EiH and several awesome scenarios, many of which were improvements over something that did not work "right" for the people playing it. This is a game and as such is open to modification and improvement. Just because you like public everything does not mean your way is the only way, or even the correct way, it IS a way to play. You are advocating forcing everyone to play the game the way you want it played and denying people the option of your way or a fog of war way.

[:-] Just because a majority of lemmings jump off a cliff, does not mean they are doing the smart thing (and I know lemmings don't jump off cliffs, they get pushed [:D] )

[ardilla]

What it is your deal?!?!?

Do not make us play the same way you play.

As you can tell from the rules, there are many optative rules in the game, upgrades and so on that had been added because of common sense, historical facts, or whatever.

So, doesnt matter the way you look at it, THERE ARE GOING TO BE rules that have to been voted at the start of a game.
So, one more check box for FOW and economic papers it is not a big deal.

There is no such an "integrity" of the game danger or whatever you think of.

I, and almost 20 more people that I know we have been playing with hidden economic sheets and armies.

And we are happy and enjoyed many games.

Our actual game we decided to let the armies sheet be public and we voted for it.
And at the start of 1810 we realize that it is more fun to play with FOW.

I am sorry but this game is not like Risk, there are many, many rules, many, many optional ones and many, many home rules that after many years are part of the game for many people, and I not only talking for myself and my friends.

So let MG make us all happy.
Regards.