News from the Beta - Deviation List

[Ralegh]

Hi - I'm Ralegh, and I joined the EIANW testing team a few weeks back. A few of you will know me from the COG forum. I'm an EIA/EIH player and my interest in EIA led me to Matrix, which in turn led me to COG, and my work on the COG beta got me into the EIA beta. Professionally, I'm a Software Architect in Canberra Australia.

To help me do testing, I put together a list of features, and the beta gang helped me understand what was in and what was out for v1 of EIANW. (EIA is a huge game, so they couldn't implement everything in V1.) Here is my Consolidated Deviation List [this is really just the 'major' features - there are a number of other more minor deviations that Marshall is keeping a track of].

I don't think Marshall will consider any of these for v1 - right now we have him beavering away at bugs - but some of this stuff might make it into a patch or a version 2 - I suppose it is up to the player community to provide feedback on the relative importance of different features... This thread would be a good place. In no particular order, and with sequential numbering just to make it easy to refer to things:

Rules not implemented
1. Forced march
2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)
4. Besieged port city supply
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)
7. British change to VPs
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)
10. Scuttling of ships
11. Demobilizing
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion
14. Large fleets
15. Limited supply
16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]
17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms
18. Peace treaty limited access
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)
20. American trade restriction
21. Naval raiding
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions
25. Change of Dominance status

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.
30. Access through the Dardenelles
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport
33. Privateers and privateer defence

[Barbu]

Here's a list of the changes I feel will negatively alter gameplay.

4. Besieged port city supply

This added an interesting tactical element. It's not a game breaking feature, but I don't see why it should be left out

11. Demobilizing

Pretty much the same thing as above.

15. Limited supply

I know this is in theory an optional rule, but this is major. It's an effective detterent against monster stack tactics.


17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms

Again, an optional rule, but given that the game conditions do not favor a British-France rivalry, and that in the initial situation, they tend to be allies more than enemies - and that they are the 2 most powerful nations in the game - I don't think doing away with that rule is a good idea.

[leighm]

I pretty much agree with Barbu's thoughts but also would like to see Proportional Losses & corps on loan incorporated.

What's happening with no British change to VPs. Will the game include the condition that if no-one wins, then Britain wins? If so, British Change to VPs is important.

And please, please, please..... tell me that we will see the additional Kingdom rules somewhere down the track. How can you have a Napoleonic game without the Kingdom of Italy or the Confederation of the Rhine????????

Leigh

[j-s]

Thank you for information.[&o]
There is a lot of important rules that are left out. It will change a lot of things and I hope, that these will be added to the game:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
1. Forced march

Sometimes it is a huge advantage. We have used it a lot in all of our FtF games. If it's left out it's out and nothing helps. But I hope it will be on some patch.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
2. Defender retirement into the city

I'm not a programmer, but is it hard to make a guestion "Will you retirement to the city: yes or no?". This is not so bad anyway. But you can't so easy bluff with corps just one factor...

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

Bad to GB. And is loser retreated to the port or is it possible to retreat adjacent sea area? If not, this is bad to all others that GB [8D]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
4. Besieged port city supply

Bye bye Gibraltar... This is MUST to the GB!
On EiA you need to block Gibraltar naval supply, if you want to attack there. And first of cource you must deal with GB navy. Now you don't need to do that anymore. And losing gibraltar will damage GB game on mediterran a lot. And this will affect to many coastal manouvers and so on.

This is a major thing that i want to be in the game.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)

Not so bad, could be added to some patch. Can live with this

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

What this means? "Sponsored" minors can't assault? Or if I have a free state, will this affect tho them?

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
7. British change to VPs

It looks like there is Frace players programming this game [;)]
First garrison naval supply out and now this? No way! And it is a good question that will GB win if no other win?

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]

Great, adding final bids in is a good.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)

Good start!

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
10. Scuttling of ships

Not so important, but why this is left out? It can't be hard to add a "scuttle" option...

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
11. Demobilizing

See up...

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

yep

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion
14. Large fleets
15. Limited supply
16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]

Those new political combinations would be nice. At least Two Sicilies with it's fleet is always used.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms

Bad thing, this has always used. If this is not on the game, game will change a lot. That's why this optional should be a rule...

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
18. Peace treaty limited access
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)
20. American trade restriction
21. Naval raiding
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions
25. Change of Dominance status

No change to dominance status? wow, this is a HUGE! This means that France/GB will be dominant powers all time. That's a change that I don't like. Dominance should absolutely be in the game.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)

This makes a lot of things easier. Like: programming, turkish attack, PBEM games....

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.
30. Access through the Dardenelles
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport
33. Privateers and privateer defence

why to add extra things (privateers and so on) to the game, if some important basic rules have to left out? Basic naval system would have been a lot of easier to program. If it's EiA, then it should be a EiA. If rules are changed a lot, it will be a different game.

Anyway, I am a critical for major canges to the basic rules. But I want to thank you for you message, this is something I have been wating for. Thank you and good luck with testing!

[NeverMan]

It's unfortunate that most of the important rules were left out yet so much time was spent on implementing unneeded EiH options.

I am glad that they did get the bidding thing, although since it is not done in the game, this aspect is very much like cyberboard, which is free.

"rules not implemented" that are really needed:

1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11

Of those, 1, 2, 4 and 10 are REALLY important, IMO

Optional rules are just that "optional", however, I would like these to be implemented:

15, 16, 17 (should really be a non-optional rule, but whatever), 19, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24

Yeah, sorry that is a long list, but those are the ones I really consider non-optional and I have always played with so to me those are like EiA RULES really. They bring a lot of balance to the game that is needed, IMO.

Changed rules that I disagree with:

26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33

I guess I will offend some people with my criticism (carnifex), but I really don't care.

It seems that maybe EiA should never be adapted to the PC, or at least technology (or something) just isn't ready for it. If these are the way the rules are laid out I am not sure how you can even legally call this game EiA. I guess AH doesn't care as long as they get paid. What a shame!

[Barbu]

Doing away with 2&3 would majorly affect gameplay in a ftf game, but I think we have to keep in mind that these rules might be hard to use properly depending on how multiplayer interaction is implemented.

[Barbu]

You're way too harsh neverman.

I agree that it's hard to fathom why stuff like #1 and #10 isn't in the game. Force marching is an interesting element that should be in, but it's hardly a major game altering change. #10 (scuttling) should be in as well but doing away with it will only have a very minor impact on the game. I've seen fleets scuttled in a major fashion three times, and every time it was the french doing that to buy peace with Great Britain.

#8 - Frankly I don't really care. Basic victory conditions are *supposed* to be balanced regardless of bids.

#16 adds flavor, is fun, but is largely inconsequential over the course of a game.

[Hanal]

I am so glad I never played EiA the board game as I will not have a bank of rules to reference and therefore not be so anal about what is missing!

[hlj]

I think it sounds great.
I like that 2 and 7 isnt in the game.
it is GREAT that 13, 14, 20 and 25 isnt in the game.

At this point I dont want to highlight any rules I find missing or wrongly implemented in the game. Instead I wish you good luck with your testing, and hope you all finish this game soon.

When I have played the game for a couple of weeks I might post suggestions for things to include in future patches.

HLJ[:)]

[Pippin]

15. Limited supply

I know this is in theory an optional rule, but this is major. It's an effective detterent against monster stack tactics.

Limited supply has been shown to create more problems than it fixes. I wont miss this one if it is left out.

[Windfire]

I would like to see the 1788 campaign from EIH adapted to the computer game in a future patch or expansion.

Looking forward to playing the game.

[Pippin]

On EiA you need to block Gibraltar naval supply, if you want to attack there. And first of cource you must deal with GB navy. Now you don't need to do that anymore. And losing gibraltar will damage GB game on mediterran a lot. And this will affect to many coastal manouvers and so on.

I must be playing Britain all wrong. I never found much use for Gibralter at all, except as a buffer to hold enough key territories to prevent the loss of my dominant status if too many players try to knock me out.

If I want to go south-east on a voyage I will just make multiple stops at friendly Spanish ports if I must. If the Spanish try to NOT be so friendly, then I will still dump my corps at her ports regardless, and FORCE her to wise up.

P.S. You get no gold or manpower from Gibralter so what's the big deal. And if Spain realy wants it, she will take it no matter what you do. However, 99.9% of the time she has no use for it so it's not even worth the hassle for her to do so.

[Falconius]

Okay, you asked for feedback, so here goes:

17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.

22 & 23: Proportional losses: Without this, one faction in a force can take all the losses, while another takes none. This can be unbalancing and seemingly unfair. How are the losses to be decided, anyway? If chosen at random, it will more or less work out to be proportional anyway, so I'm hoping that's the way it currently stands. But randomness can be flukey and fall prey to streaks. I'd hate to see a good game get ruined because someone became frustrated because they kept taking the lion's share of the losses and quit the game over it.

25. Dominance Changes: Takes away a very fun aspect of the game: setting a goal for your nation to achieve dominance, or trying to knock down a nation that already has it.

I hope to see these implemented, as you say, in some future patch or version of the game.

[Pippin]

17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.

With out the ability to subtract PP, I don't see many British players allying with France. The big bad monster will just turn into an even bigger monster and there will be nothing Britain can do to stop it after she realizes that mistake.

[Ralegh]

#10 (scuttling) should be in as well but doing away with it will only have a very minor impact on the game. I've seen fleets scuttled in a major fashion three times, and every time it was the french doing that to buy peace with Great Britain.

I'm not quite up to testing it yet, but the removal of fleets/ships (whatever the rule says) is in the game as a peace condition - what isn't implemented is a MP just deciding to scuttle.

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.

With out the ability to subtract PP, I don't see many British players allying with France. The big bad monster will just turn into an even bigger monster and there will be nothing Britain can do to stop it after she realizes that mistake.

Disagree there. It's far easier to bring down France than to bring down GB. There's nothing that France can do to make herself impervious from a world coalition. The same isn't true from GB. If, while allied with France, GB manages to sink either the spanish or the russian fleet, good luck bringing the british down.

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

15. Limited supply

I know this is in theory an optional rule, but this is major. It's an effective detterent against monster stack tactics.

Limited supply has been shown to create more problems than it fixes. I wont miss this one if it is left out.

How does it create more problems?

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

#10 (scuttling) should be in as well but doing away with it will only have a very minor impact on the game. I've seen fleets scuttled in a major fashion three times, and every time it was the french doing that to buy peace with Great Britain.

I'm not quite up to testing it yet, but the removal of fleets/ships (whatever the rule says) is in the game as a peace condition - what isn't implemented is a MP just deciding to scuttle.

What I meant is the voluntary scuttling of the french fleets (not as a part of a peace condition) to get britain off her back - Since bottled up fleets aren't of any use in existence except to draw british hostility.

Anyway I won't miss it if it's not in.

[Pippin]

How does it create more problems?

The problem that limited supply creates has been debated for years on the EiH yahoo grooups. So if you're very interested, everything should be still archived there if you want to sort through them all.

To make a long story short, limited supply ends up giving you rediculous circumstances, such as an army of 5 factors costing far more to supply than an army of 22 factors. Strange considering the whole point of limited supply was to do the opposite of this thing in the first place!

IMHO the ones pushing for the limited supply option are people who have played the game a few times but are not experienced enough to think out of the box.

[Pippin]

There's nothing that France can do to make herself impervious from a world coalition. The same isn't true from GB.

It only takes 3 nations to ally in 1805 to knock out Britain from the get-go. And often just 2 can be enough.


Your next question is, if that is so then why doesn't everyone do it?

And my next answer is, because FRANCE is the one who ends up owning the entire UK for the rest of the game and ends up knocking everyone else off before 1815 comes around...