News from the Beta - Deviation List

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Pippin


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.

You raise a good point - the rule favors some nations, like France with it's very large corps and is significantly harsher on countries with much smaller corps like Russia, and create some odds situations such as the one described above.

I think that in the end though, the rule achieves what it's supposed to do, which is to restrict the use of monster stacks and put a greater emphasis on supply lines.

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

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...

I wouldn't do it as say Spain or Russia - but I have a very different outlook on things.

Reasons I wouldn't do it is I would have much greater freedom with the secure knowledge that France and Britain are busy with each other.

If I were forced to choose between the two however, the choice is easy - the british fleet goes to the bottom.

I am not sure why you're saying that France would go knocking off everyone else should GB be smashed. Odds aren't favorable for the french if they are faced by a coalition of pretty much any of the 3 other major powers under "normal" circumstances (except maybe for a combination of Spain/Prussia/turkey heh). But get either the Russian or Spanish fleet to bottom of the sea and the same logic can't be applied to GB vs the rest of the world.

[Pippin]

I have seen France with control of the UK. The amount of gold, manpower, and other penalties she can now inflict on everyone else, (e.g. knocking out all trades, etc) is huge. Perhaps you are right in that it does not mean France wins 100%. IIRC, as soon as UK falls into French hands everyone just wants to quit the game at that point anyhow.

If Britain is smart and gives a surrender early, then she will still get cracked on the head pretty hard, but perhaps she will live if Spain for example decides to remove her alliance from France.

Once France gets her corps into UK soil, she will make sure through every means possible as soon as any enforced peace time is up, her corps will have a guaranteed method of re-landing for another go.

Even a smart Brit who keeps surrendering early each time to save what it can, will just end up in a downward spiral of getting weaker and farther behind. Coming to a point where there is nothing left of her and it will end up in France's hands mostly.

Trying to rebuild the navy? Don't bother! You know she is going to lose 2 fleets on every surrender... lose any minors... and all trade will be banned. Not to mention worse problems when France isn't the only one getting repeated surrenders out of her.

[Pippin]

I think that in the end though, the rule achieves what it's supposed to do, which is to restrict the use of monster stacks and put a greater emphasis on supply lines.

You are going to penalize smart players using the Bluff Corps tactics even more, etc. Limited supply still causes more inconsistancies than it fixes. Just like every other rule that gets added into EiH, and then is ammended over and over until it is interpreted 50 different ways and gets vaguely explained.

If we were realy devoted to a limited supply structure, it should be done on a per factor bases. Of course, even if we did do this and find a system that works great for once, there would be other people upset how it takes the fun out of monster stack tactics!

[timothy_stone]

Not having proportional land losses is a shame - it proportionally helps the anti-french alliance, and also anyone allied with Turkey.

in the anti-french alliance, often you'll have a few british corps salting the german army, without proportional losses, the prussians/austrians can take all the losses, which will give them a higher morale over time than they would retain normally. Also makes it tougher to put the pressure on GB through manpower losses (since it is harder for him to rebuild).

Of course, this assumes GB is anti-french, which is a big assumption with the brit/fr at war rule not used.

And obviously, an Au/Tu force will happily kill off feudals all day long while fighting russia, etc -

shame, seems a mighty easy feature to implement

[marc420]

When you talk about v1, does this mean some of these might be added later in a patch? Or is this going to be the usual idea of making everyone pay full price for another game to eventually see these features?

Maybe I've been burned too many times, but I'm getting tired of paying full price for a game missing features, then being told I have to pay full price a second time to get those features.[:-]

I like the idea of a EiA game, but I'm learning the smart move is to completely ignore the first and maybe the second release of a game system and wait for the full game to eventually be developed.[>:]

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I have seen France with control of the UK. The amount of gold, manpower, and other penalties she can now inflict on everyone else, (e.g. knocking out all trades, etc) is huge. Perhaps you are right in that it does not mean France wins 100%. IIRC, as soon as UK falls into French hands everyone just wants to quit the game at that point anyhow.

If Britain is smart and gives a surrender early, then she will still get cracked on the head pretty hard, but perhaps she will live if Spain for example decides to remove her alliance from France.

Once France gets her corps into UK soil, she will make sure through every means possible as soon as any enforced peace time is up, her corps will have a guaranteed method of re-landing for another go.

Even a smart Brit who keeps surrendering early each time to save what it can, will just end up in a downward spiral of getting weaker and farther behind. Coming to a point where there is nothing left of her and it will end up in France's hands mostly.

Trying to rebuild the navy? Don't bother! You know she is going to lose 2 fleets on every surrender... lose any minors... and all trade will be banned. Not to mention worse problems when France isn't the only one getting repeated surrenders out of her.

How can France make sure to land safely in GB every 18 months?

The only way to do this would be to have a comfortable naval superiority over GB. Depending on the continental situation, this can be problematic.

Additionally, antagonizing GB over and over will offset most of the gains through reparations etc. Normal french trade with GB is often in excess of 20$. Should GB deny trade with France during the mandatory peace duration, that's 120$ lost right there.

Let's take the worst case scenario regarding reparations in this case: that's 34$ *2 = 68$, plus half the trade for 4 economic phases = 60$ from colonial trade, and assuming GB does not trade with France, about 80$ from trade in the best circumstances. So France in the best of conditions will end up roughly 80$ ahead every 18 months - Hardly a huge amount and certainly not enough to offset the cost of wars against GB.

I fail to see how France could mathematically ensure beating GB every 18 months, and also fail to see how achieving that would get her so much ahead.

Even using the mandatory war option, the main threat to France security does not come from GB, but from the Prussia-Austria alliance. the removal of GB one way or another would be a major boon to France, but my no means a guarantee of victory. Also consider that countries like Russia or even Turkey can replace GB in an anti-french coalition with far greater effectiveness than GB could manage in most circumstances.

In the initial 1805 situation it should be a relief to both GB and France to not be at war. France because war with the germanies is unavoidable in the short term and they represent the most important threat, and Britain because her interests tend to clash with Russia and Spain more often than not, and 64 less ships to worry about is a big difference.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: Barbu


How can France make sure to land safely in GB every 18 months?

Well I think the wise French player would take Scotland or Wales in the first war. Then land 3 or 4 Corps on the 17 month of enforced peace and have his fleets tucked up in port for the (short) time it takes Nappy to take London and end the second war [;)] Rinse and repeat [:D]

I have seen an Russia / Spain / French vs England war from Jan '05. Not nice for Britain [;)] and France comes out of it well as his fleets are freed up and he gets trade etc with the UK. Of course the Surrender was negociated and Spain & Russia made sure that France does not get a foothold in the UK. France happily agrees to just about any conditions they want as he gains plenty anyway.

Other than that I think at least some of the moaning is a little over blown here. Surely you can house rule bid VPs, proportional losses (assuming the 'owner' of the stack chooses - see rule 29 for why there will be less joint stacks) and the England/France surrender.

I know that one of the big pluses of a computer game EiA is that it decides (one way or another) any rule ambiguities, but a few house rules will clear up many omissions. Things like naval rule changes and no force marches are much more important issues. But hardly show stoppers.

Thanks for the list [:)]

[JRichert]

The big rules no shows here are:

Force March - This can be key, especially in the instance of rapidly reinforcing a weak army that is vulnerable to attack.

New Political Combinations - Some of these are very important. The Confederation of the Rhine and Kingdom of Italy are huge for adding forces to the nations that control them. As was already pointed out, the K. of Two Sicilies is an important minor as well.

American Trade Restriction - This was a big factor in games. It could really hurt a cash strapped country if denied at the right time, but England had to be careful lest they go to war with the US.

Change of Dominance - This is huge. Why shouldn't France or England fight to the death if their dominance is not threatened? Conversely, you will not see a weak England or France surrender right away against a powerful coalition to save their status.

Insurrection corps placement - This is big because it is an anti-Turkey rule. Giving the Austrians greater latitude in playing the corps is not a great idea.

Retreats conducted by AI - This seems strange, couldn't a text window be opened to ask the player which way he would like to retreat?

The combined movement option is not a good solution. One of the perils of combined movement was movement order. If you used combined movement, you might move after your opponent. This way, that could be circumvented by giving the corps on loan to the player that moves first in the order.

Ships and privateers - I would prefer to have all EiA rules implemented before EiH rules, but I guess I have no power over that.

EiH took an elegant game and swamped it with tons more minutiae.

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum


Well I think the wise French player would take Scotland or Wales in the first war. Then land 3 or 4 Corps on the 17 month of enforced peace and have his fleets tucked up in port for the (short) time it takes Nappy to take London and end the second war [;)] Rinse and repeat [:D]

I have seen an Russia / Spain / French vs England war from Jan '05. Not nice for Britain [;)] and France comes out of it well as his fleets are freed up and he gets trade etc with the UK. Of course the Surrender was negociated and Spain & Russia made sure that France does not get a foothold in the UK. France happily agrees to just about any conditions they want as he gains plenty anyway.

I didn't consider that possiblity because the way we understood it, France would be forced to take c.1.c and c.5 as his first 2 picks if playing with a mandatory war option, and I suppose a smart spanish/russian player would make sure that France doesn't get a foothold. I suppose the rules could be interpreted in different ways though. Also if I am not mistaken, in order to pick either Wales or scotland one would need to have a corps in it, which would require either a main landing there, or a main landing at London and a secondary one in Scotland, or a main landing in England followed up by a corps moving up to either province from there (and if the british doesn't surrender before that last possibility occurs he's a complete fool) and finally that a landing is possible on the turn of the british decisive naval defeat. Lots of conditions there - gotta remember that the battle of britain is usually over after 1 or 2 turns.

Anyway not to derail this thread too much - What I wanted to point out is that I feel (and others do too) that the initial situation does not favor a GB-France rivalry, and that my experience when not using that option is that it was detrimental to gameplay.

[Hoplosternum]

Hi Barbu,

I agree that the initial game status does not encourage the two to fight and an alliance between the two, or even neutrality where they both trade can be lucrative and offer opportunities to both. I very much like the rule that inhibits this.

But it's not much of a hinderance as it can be easily house ruled. Unlike Force March, New political combinations etc. etc.

As for the wording of the rules it's a while since I played so you may be correct that as France I have to pick those first (as opposed to simply picking them). In the example I gave it never came up as the peace treaty was decided on before the war began.

Also if playing ANY power that invades the UK I would always land in Wales or Scotland so that I could take one. Once ashore England is lost so there is no need to hit London immeadiately. England does not have the land army in England (early on anyway) and her provinces are so high forage values movement without depots is not too bad. Taking Wales or Scotland as Spain or Russia allows you to blackmail England and / or sell it later at a high price. You can always give France free access for the 'free' joint Unconditional you will get from England.

This is why I agree with Pippin that England surrenders BEFORE this can occur. If England allows any power to take Wales or Scotland her game and because she is so key probably the game in general is over.

[Pippin]

Even if you enforced a rule where England and France had to be at war and stay there, this does not change much. I've seen too many times with this house rule, where Britan and France just PRETEND they are going to attack each other, but never do. You can't stop those two players from agreeing to not touch each other even though they are supposed to technicaly be at war. You also can not stop Britain or France from trying to help each other out as best they can, despite the tables shows them at war.

What is next? A new rule to ensure that x amount of british factors and x amount of french factors must be lost in a battle between them by such & such a date, or they both counterfiet the game? Do it and I am sure another method for exploiting this will be devised. If Britain and France realy want to be allies there is nothing much you can do about it. But does it matter? It does not benefit Britain as much as people fear. If it did, you would see this a lot more.


The rest of the players end up fooling themselves.

[Pippin]

Well I think the wise French player would take Scotland or Wales in the first war. Then land 3 or 4 Corps on the 17 month of enforced peace and have his fleets tucked up in port for the (short) time it takes Nappy to take London and end the second war Rinse and repeat

I like to keep a loaded corps or two sitting on Lille. As soon as someone takes control of the channel I simply walk across and land right inside London. With the poor corps Britain starts out with, there is very little chance she can do much.

One thing I love to do when playing vs the same British player in the next game, is to park two corps on Lille, but only have one factor in each. The British player will think for sure you are planning a repeat invasion as the previous game, and will bottle himself up in a pure defensive mode. For the entire length of that game, those 2 factors will pin down the entire Royal navy in the channel. Not only do you gain this bonus, but your back door is protected by a cheap bluff, while all your real factor power is being used in battles on the other side of France.

[Barbu]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

One thing I love to do when playing vs the same British player in the next game, is to park two corps on Lille, but only have one factor in each. The British player will think for sure you are planning a repeat invasion as the previous game, and will bottle himself up in a pure defensive mode. For the entire length of that game, those 2 factors will pin down the entire Royal navy in the channel. Not only do you gain this bonus, but your back door is protected by a cheap bluff, while all your real factor power is being used in battles on the other side of France.

Ah! I had this done to me once - as Prussia though. We (me and Austria) were under the impression that substantial french troops were tied down in France and got a rude awakening when the entire french army bowled into us.

I borrowed the trick in another game when playing France and the bluff payed off for a few months with the germans grossly underestimating the amounf of troops I had facing them. I had terrible luck in battle unfortunately and couldn't take advantage of the confusion on the other side. They started tracking down my corps strength and then realized there couldn't be that many factors in the corps I left in France.

[anacrion]

Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion

[AdmiralN]

ORIGINAL: anacrion

Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion

I agree with you; I think it would be be better to focus on EiA core - standard and optional - rules first.
EiH might come out in future as a mod, as a scenario in a further patch, or whatever (I suspect that many people would appreciate a 1792 scenario as well [8D] ).
But first developers should try to fix EiA rules.

I'm not saying that I'm not going to play with different rules, it always happens when you play EiA by mail with different people from all over the world; still it would be better to have the opportunity to set the rules you prefer.

Rules like the no-naval-pursuit and so on will affect the game, no doubt, but it's just a matter of getting used to them.

[Ralegh]

some key features of this game are not implemented

We (the players) want optionals to be optional. And want a pretty UI that is user friendly and no bugs and great doco and a challenging AI and a cheap price. We want it all, and want it now! Me too! But without Bill Gates becoming an EIA fanatic and generously making a significant contribution, it aint gonna be like that.

In the real world, I am trying to get the potential user community (all of you) to contribute to the prioritisation advice to the developers. [I am already making my voice heard - I wanted to get the rest of you to do so too!]

So IF some of the missing rules were to be implemented before other missing rules, which ones would you NEED to get your group buying (and playing) the game?

BTW - the little bit of EIH rules that are in are already programmed, so there is no time saving in leaving them out. In fact, it would take time to remove them and test the replacement rules.

[John Umber]

My little thoughts...

Force march are sometimes used to trick the enemy. It is a good rule that I like to launch a major attack with the french - combined with the double move it usually concentrates the forces and destroy some major enemy stack with minor losses. It can be very dangerous to the Prussian little town called Berlin.
But the game is not a waste without it. I like to see it in Patch 1.1.

New Kingdoms, this is VERY important to the french who wish to invade Russia. Without the manpower from Conf. Rhine it lacks the punch needed to control the flanks. Prussia and Austria will be trigger-happy... All the corps and extra manpower from corp-free countries are to important.
It must be included in patch 1.1, if not in the original game.

The rest are optional, but very funny if used.

Please make sure they stay OPTIONAL though, some people hate to have their generals killed every so often. They are never replaced by other famous generals later in the game...

[Daniel Jax]

Well people here's my thoughts.


Rules not implemented
1. Forced march

This is an important one. Due to the forage losses it inevitably causes it is only used in emergency but when it’s needed, it’s needed (the French double move for instance). Would like to see this one if not in the first release then at least in v 1.1

2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)

Not a real big, can live with it as it is set up.

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

Mmmm. In the case where, say, the English fleet is defeated by the French (+ allies) in preparation for an invasion it will now be impossible for the anti-British forces to bottle up the Brit fleet with a blockade. But the Brits always had the option of retreating to a sea area if they preferred… Changes things but I don’t think it greatly unbalances the game, will just require an adjustment of the strategies used. It does mean that a Brit fleet is very unlikely to ever be caught in port and destroyed if the city is taken. All in all I’d say it advantages the Brits. But see No. 7 below.

No problem with it as it stands.

4. Besieged port city supply

Makes Istanbul more vulnerable now as they won’t be able to sea supply from across the Hellespont when besieged. Also means the Brits will have to be careful about where they land forces on the mainland. Without besieged supply they’ll be more vulnerable. Spanish suffer as well in the case of relying on British sea supply in the face of the French. (although it seems this is not possible without lending forces to another player, see 29 below).

But all up I’d say can wait for the v 1.1 on this one too.

5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)

not a biggy but would still be nice to have at some point.

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

Means that good corps have to be left behind for sieges. That, or minor corps can be left for long sieges. Again not a biggy but a bit of a nuisance for those who tend to use a lot of minor corps (eg: France)

Wait for the patch

7. British change to VPs

I believe some people asked what the situation was in the case of no outright winner. It depends on this. Without a British default victory this is not a big thing, with it: well, if I was a regular Brit player I’d be pissed. But I like playing the Turks and Spanish[;)]

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

Well if the game facilitates putting the bids in then no problem whatsoever. Just do the bidding by email (or FtF or whatever) before the game and then go for it. Might want to include the rules for bidding in the game manual though as the amount of VPs paid for a country can be a major factor in determining the winner.

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

Grand Campaign is enough to start with. Obviously everyone will want more scenarios available eventually. But if you want a shorter scenario play for fewer years and work out the winner on percentages.


10. Scuttling of ships

I assume that it can still be done as a peace term and that this only refers to voluntary scuttling. Have never seen it happen. Not a problem.

11. Demobilizing

As 10 above.

12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

Bit messy and I can see that it will be open to abuses (supposed ‘neutral’ garrisons in towns stopping a 3rd party from gaining entry)

Might be better in the original. Just make 'em vanish and re-appear in the capital. Not realistic but hey, it's a game.


Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion

This optional rule always disadvantaged the Prussians and we’ve always played without it.

14. Large fleets

So large fleets can move up to a full 7 areas. Advantages those with large fleets. The Brits basically. Makes up for some of their losses.

15. Limited supply

This is an important one, would like to see it in the original release. Without it it makes poorer nations more able to supply big stacks & supply lines less vulnerable.

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]

Disadvantages the French a bit (can be nice to get that extra Political Status in peace times) but I assume that the minors’ corps/fleets will still be available. Not a big one but definitely one of those for the v1.1 as it adds historic flavour.

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

Open to abuse as has been pointed out. Gentleman’s agreements can prevent this of course. So wait for the patch, meanwhile play nice.

18. Peace treaty limited access

can’t remember the exact effects of this rule, therefore no informed opinion. Unless: is this the one where (without it) your corps will merely be teleported back to the captial on an enemy surrender? If so would like to see it in the game (where possible more realism is better). If I've got it completely wrong please ignore me.

19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)

Can't remember: does this mean only allies can enter your territory? If so fine. If not also fine. Does that sound ambivalent?

20. American trade restriction

Well the Brits are getting hammered here (see 4 and 7 as well) but 3 and 14 make up for it a lot. Of course this one is a two edged sword and can (if unlucky) hurt the brits more than their enemies.

21. Naval raiding

Rare that anyone ever has hostile fleets next to GB in an economic turn (or any other turn). Never miss it.

22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses

Well if not proportional how ARE losses apportioned? If decided by the players then a gentleman’s agreement can put this one in place anyway. If randomly assigned then it will work out close enough anyway. In either case not a game breaker.

24. Balance of Power peace restrictions

I prefer to play without this one anyway.

25. Change of Dominance status

Very hard to pull this off in any case so not an immediate necessity. Would definitely like to see it in the patch though. It’s one of things you can aim for.

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)

Sounds like the best option for PBEM in any case so I’m for AI placement. Also since their Insurrectionists (ie: local rebels) it makes sense for them not to be controlled initially by the central gov’t. Not so happy about expanded area though. The poor old Turks are really getting hammered by all this.

27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)

Much like the above. Some automation is necessary for playability. Go for it.

28. All retreats are conducted by the AI

Ditto.

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.

Not good. When it comes time for allies to pile on the big guys it means that one or more players will basically be handing their turns/armies over to another player. Not much fun. Especially in the classic case of Spain/Britain vs. the French where the Spanish must rely on the Brits for pretty much everything (such as supply). The Brits will basically be running Spain. Meanwhile the Spanish player can go to bed.

30. Access through the Dardenelles

Would have to think about this one. It sounds like it will make Istanbul more vulnerable. Will also give the Russians a more open hand in the Med. But not a major one wait for the patch.

31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)

Who’d convert expensive Cav and Guard to Inf in any case? Don't need it.

32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport

Doesn’t sound like anything major without the EiH naval combat. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

33. Privateers and privateer defence

Not sure about this one either way. Would have to see it in action.

[anacrion]

Ralegh mailed me to post some MNIs (most needed implementations), so here they come:

1) force marches are most important for quick maneuvering (esp. the french during double movement).

2) besieged port city supply ... without this rule istanbul and gibraltar become most vulnerable

3) Limited supply: anything that can be done to avoid monster stacks needs to be ... and we know of the fate of Napoleon's monster stack in
Russia

4) new political combinations: necessary ... i mean .. this is 'the napoleonic wars' .... together with
5) dominance change they are not that decisive in the long run, since they either do not happen very often or do not change the balance of
power that much, but: these are the things we normally aim to reach, yet rarely achieve due to the wits of our fellow players, if they
happen, they are highpoints of the game, something to be remembered ...

6) Combined move ... hmm. hairy to implement, I suppose. But it should be done for the sake of being able to control one's armies oneself.

7) British VP Change: Well ... this sort of obstructs the british policy of just seeing to nobody getting too strong. I always saw this
rule as the british power offsetting some of the reduced power's strength. Will end games quicker. Should be implemented.


One thing at last: as someone who programs a lot myself, I think that many of the non-implemented rules should not be that hard to implement, just one more dialog or button to give the player the option to actually commit/change an action (British VP Change, Force March, Scuttling, Demobilizing, Militia Conversion, Large fleets, ....)

Is the non-implementation of many rules more a question of finding an AI to deal with those rules? Because otherwise I do not really understand, why they are not in the game as of yet..

As my previous post details, I think that _ALL_ the standard rules should be implemented and everything a player can decide should be left to him unless he decides to leave the decision to the AI.

Anacrion