Where is everyone????

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ioticus
I don't see how you can just "discover" an issue like TMR. If this important concept was not part of the original design then it doesn't bode well for the game as a whole, especially the artificial intelligence.

I tend to agree.

Personally, I think that without TMR, Wellington DOES become too powerful. It's not just the Brits army (the awesome 4.5 morale) but take 2 Brit corp, 2 Au Corp and 2 Pr Corp and that's one badass unit under Wellington's control without any penalties to the leader. The main advantage of having Napoleon is that he is 5.5.6 not a 5.5.3 or a 4.4.6 or a 5.4.3 or whatever. Nap is great and can be great even with a large army. Wellington never really had the practice due to Brit's small army and therefore should go down a notch when commaning more than 3 corps.

[Pippin]

It is not often I see Britain, Prussia, and Austria mixing corps to share under one leader. Though I have seen naval units mix stacks many times.

[NeverMan]

Interesting. I see Au, GB, and Pr mixing corp all the time in a coalition against France.

This is the best part about a possible EiA Computer release: playing with many different people. That is what I am most looking forward to. Usually when I played, it was always 7 people drawn from the same 20 person group. I sure hope this game becomes a reality before I die.

[ktotwf]

I say, wait. This game WILL eventually come out. If you can't find another focus for your life until then, than maybe you shouldn't even worry about this game.

[sol_invictus]

We've waited this long; what's a few more months?

[Pippin]

I see Au, GB, and Pr mixing corp all the time in a coalition against France.

I think it is much more stronger to operate independant for corps depending on the angle you look at it. Too many problems arise when they are mixed. I also don't like the fact how I am restricted to who I can declare war on because that person just happens to have a corps of two factors left on my door-step, etc.

A lot less restrictions regarding naval stacks. I have no problems with stacking the Spain and sometimes even Russian ships with my French in the channel. Great way to knock out Britain early in the game if he is known to be a trouble maker for all.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: ioticus
I don't see how you can just "discover" an issue like TMR. If this important concept was not part of the original design then it doesn't bode well for the game as a whole, especially the artificial intelligence.

They actually had made a policy decision not to use TMR, and then feedback from this forum caused them to reconsider... their discovery was not the mechanic of TMR, but rather, the importance of the mechanic for play balance. Even then, there were voices in here arguing against including it.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: Pippin
I think it is much more stronger to operate independant for corps depending on the angle you look at it. Too many problems arise when they are mixed.

The English seem to do best when they find the right fight(s) to lend their strength to. One English leader with a small force can turn the tide of a conflict. Of course, the English can help without mixing forces, but in the thick of the action, forces sometimes need to operate together, after casualties have been inflicted on a key force for instance.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I see Au, GB, and Pr mixing corp all the time in a coalition against France.

I think it is much more stronger to operate independant for corps depending on the angle you look at it. Too many problems arise when they are mixed. I also don't like the fact how I am restricted to who I can declare war on because that person just happens to have a corps of two factors left on my door-step, etc.

A lot less restrictions regarding naval stacks. I have no problems with stacking the Spain and sometimes even Russian ships with my French in the channel. Great way to knock out Britain early in the game if he is known to be a trouble maker for all.

IMO, mixing corps is essential for attrition. Not factor attrition, but PP attrition. By splitting the PP losses, it doesn't allow France to focus on taking one country out of the coalition through massive PP loss.

Personally, I can't even see how the coalition could stand against France without mixing corps. If I was France I would focus all my energy on one country at a time and but them into the instability or fiasco zone VERY quickly.

If Prussia and/or Austria loses two or three large attacks (involving 4 or 6 corps) against France and suffers those 2 to 3 PPs for each against all on their own, they will not be able to continue to fight France, hence splitting the coalition and eventually destroying the coalition.

If you mix Corps (2 Br, 2 Au, 2 Pr) and you lose then it's only 1 PP for each person and the coalition can fight and continue to lose battles longer than they would otherwise.

I am surprised you don't do this considering how experienced you say you are at EiA.

[Pippin]

I agree that the PP issue is the biggest PRO for mixing corps. But I find it to have some big draw backs as well so I am not that much a fan of it. Different players have different styles of play in this mother of all Napoleon games, that is all well.

As for your situation of say, France targeting one player and trying to pound him ASAP. I understand, and sure it is a pretty valid strategy. But now you have me wondering why no one else is doing anything about it. Is the victim’s allies all incompetent? They only will fight if they mix units?

Even if a battle has totally gone wrong for me, the max points I will ever lose is 3. And that would mean I had to have 6 of my corps there. Considering the limited number of counters for all players, I doubt I am going to have to worry about going into the fiasco zone immediately (barring some very back luck previous incidences). It takes time.

If I know I can’t really do much aggressive attacks, then time to just stall him as much as possible. The allies should see the case and react to it as they see fit. So France is bashing Austria, no problem she will just have to deal with huge Prussian cav factors rushing in the gaps with minimal resistance. What is the point of winning a war vs Austria, when you have lost your homeland? Or, Prussia can also decide to run into the hot-seat and play mop-up after the previous two sides have weakened each other.

As a British player I prefer to keep my corps directly on the English channel crossing. It is my stack and my stack only. I have no restrictions due to technical or diplomatic issues. The French guy knows it, and there is not much he can do about that, except for guarding the channel (hard to do without a lot of help, or a half decent Brit opponent). He will very often decide to take a couple corps out of his battles and keep them on patrol at Lille. Even if I don’t attack anything, just the threat of me walking across is enough that I have taken two good counters out of his war without even me having lost a single factor. Not bad. Topple in the fact I also can do any amphib assaults, (no technical or diplomatic restrictions again).

One of my main worries with having a mixed ship stack is I give my future to be opponent a bonus. He can now have the opportunity to attack my stack even though technically and diplomatically we are NOT at war. But, any decent British player should be planning ahead on probability of this anyhow, instead of being caught out in the open in surprise.

[NeverMan]

Well, Keeping a corp or two across the channel is no big deal. Or the French, having the ability to move last then first, can really reach out and touch you if you come across. The british army takes awhile to build and you don't want to see it destroyed all in one swoop.

Well, if the French decide to attack Prussia, it's leaders are good enough to keep the Austrian's busy. Having a good chance of withdrawing is always an option, plus with the move position and the French 4 movement, it's not hard to jump back and forth if the situation demands it (if the Au get to uppity and you must leave Prussia for more presssing home issues, which shouldn't take you long to solve).

I understand your concern, I just don't play the game like Diplomacy, so the whole declaring war thing is usually not a big deal for me.

Don't get me wrong, I am REALLY looking forward to playing with you and many others here if this game ever makes release. If not, this is all academic. [;)]

[Pippin]

Well, Keeping a corp or two across the channel is no big deal. Or the French, having the ability to move last then first, can really reach out and touch you if you come across. The british army takes awhile to build and you don't want to see it destroyed all in one swoop.

Yes there are many other ways to counter it. As for France's turn order bonus, she can only realy do this once, and then the order is exhausted. If she wants to re-setup for another jump bonus, she will have a penalty period, (the way I look at it). So it does not worry me too much. But definitely something for players to watch out for.

By keeping a couple French corps on Lille there is also a little bonus to France. Reason being Britain now has to be very carefull about keeping most of her navy within range. Her predominant navy is now effectively pinned there restricting her flow; else she risks a revese invasion where France now walks across and does the actual invading. This is devastating for Britain early as naturaly, she stars off so weak in corps power.

And yet again, a gambity French player could place two empty counters down hoping Britain wont call his bluff. Now he can try to keep Britain in check, while still using almost all his factors on another front.