News from the Beta - some decisions

[Ralegh]

Here is a consolidated list of the outcomes from the threads on the Deviation List and the Optional Rules. I'd like to thank all the contributors to the threads for their thoughts and support, and give a very special thank you to Marshall for taking our feedback so seriously, and being so willing to be responsive to community views. EIANW will be a much better game for these changes, IMHO.

Now the testers just have to make sure this stuff works and doesn't break too many other things.

Rules not implemented - NOW IN
1. forced marching now IN
4. Besieged port city supply now IN
7. British change to VPs now IN

Optional rules not available in game - NOW IN
16. New political combinations Confederation of the Rhine ADDED [Poland and the Ottoman Empire already in the game] - others for a patch
17. Britain and France at war: IN, as an optional rule, BUT no implementation of the special surrender terms in v1.

Rules previously implemented as mandatory, and now being made optional:
b) economic manipulation
g) leader casulties

Very seriously reconsidered but just too much work for v1.0:
15. Limited supply
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
h) The EIH rules like privateers/privateering and light/heavy ships

[j-s]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
Optional rules not available in game - NOW IN
16. New political combinations Confederation of the Rhine ADDED [Poland and the Ottoman Empire already in the game] - others for a patch

Is there any change to add kingdom of two Sicily to the game. It would be great, even if it would be on patch.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
Very seriously reconsidered but just too much work for v1.0:
15. Limited supply
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
h) The EIH rules like privateers/privateering and light/heavy ships

Make theese optionals, thanks. At least that EiH privateers etc. should be optional rule.

But thanks for testers and Marshall, great news!

[Nordiska]

drowl [X(] .......looking good. I for one don't care if the game isn't "perfect" on release as long as there are a few patches and the game is "playable" on release.

[Barbu]

Looking good.

[NeverMan]

It will be interesting to see how these games play out with no special surrender GB/Fr at war rule. I wonder if the games will end up with GB and Fr allying? Ummm... I wonder.

[donkuchi19]

You could always make the GB and FR surrendur a house rule in any games you play. It would be just like the board game, just the computer wouldn't enforce it. That would work for me.

[Pippin]

I wonder if the games will end up with GB and Fr allying? Ummm... I wonder.

I have seen GB and FR play as allies even when the rules forbid it. You will never stop 'fake wars', even if technicaly you state Britain has to always be at war with France.

[Hoplosternum]

Thats great. Thanks a lot [:D]

[JavaJoe]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

Here is a consolidated list of the outcomes from the threads on the Deviation List and the Optional Rules. I'd like to thank all the contributors to the threads for their thoughts and support, and give a very special thank you to Marshall for taking our feedback so seriously, and being so willing to be responsive to community views. EIANW will be a much better game for these changes, IMHO.

Now the testers just have to make sure this stuff works and doesn't break too many other things.

Rules not implemented - NOW IN
1. forced marching now IN
4. Besieged port city supply now IN
7. British change to VPs now IN

Optional rules not available in game - NOW IN
16. New political combinations Confederation of the Rhine ADDED [Poland and the Ottoman Empire already in the game] - others for a patch
17. Britain and France at war: IN, as an optional rule, BUT no implementation of the special surrender terms in v1.

Rules previously implemented as mandatory, and now being made optional:
b) economic manipulation
g) leader casulties

Very seriously reconsidered but just too much work for v1.0:
15. Limited supply
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
h) The EIH rules like privateers/privateering and light/heavy ships

OK 17 is a deal breaker for me...that's it I'm out![:@]


OK just kidding[8D]......these additions and subtractions make me feel better.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I wonder if the games will end up with GB and Fr allying? Ummm... I wonder.

I have seen GB and FR play as allies even when the rules forbid it. You will never stop 'fake wars', even if technicaly you state Britain has to always be at war with France.

True, but this is based on trust...... which is easy to break. If French fleets are left ungaurded what's to stop him from backstabbing GB (who he is already at war with) during the Naval Phase (supposing that GB choose to go before France) instead of having to declare war against GB and giving GB a chance to due something about it?

If GB is always thinking this backstabbing in the back of his mind, then he can rarely afford to go first in the Naval Phase, which takes away from being GB and it's power, which is a small reason why VPs are so high for GB.

There REALLY is a big difference. I guess you would really have to be a veteran of EiA to understand this.

EDIT: without the Unconditional and VERY harsh surrender conditions, they could easily due conditional surrender with royal marriage and whatever, blah blah blah... Personally, just personally, I think it really throws off the balance of the game and if I played in a game of this kind then I would bid SUPER high for GB.

[JavaJoe]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I wonder if the games will end up with GB and Fr allying? Ummm... I wonder.

I have seen GB and FR play as allies even when the rules forbid it. You will never stop 'fake wars', even if technicaly you state Britain has to always be at war with France.

True, but this is based on trust...... which is easy to break. If French fleets are left ungaurded what's to stop him from backstabbing GB (who he is already at war with) during the Naval Phase (supposing that GB choose to go before France) instead of having to declare war against GB and giving GB a chance to due something about it?

If GB is always thinking this backstabbing in the back of his mind, then he can rarely afford to go first in the Naval Phase, which takes away from being GB and it's power, which is a small reason why VPs are so high for GB.

There REALLY is a big difference. I guess you would really have to be a veteran of EiA to understand this.

EDIT: without the Unconditional and VERY harsh surrender conditions, they could easily due conditional surrender with royal marriage and whatever, blah blah blah... Personally, just personally, I think it really throws off the balance of the game and if I played in a game of this kind then I would bid SUPER high for GB.

They could also just make an informal peace, ally, then rack up the PP's against all the other players. French troops on Britsh ships.

The other aspect of this, it tends to keep GB at war with France even though GB's allies may get a surrender from France. It forces term C.6 (to remove Napoleon) ALL powers must choose this for it to take affect, therefore if let's say Prussia doesn't choose this as a condition then GB can't make peace with France.

Forcing them to specific surrender terms avoids that from happening.

Although in multi player games a house rule can fix this without a problem.

I'm not sure how the AI will handle this....

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: JavaJoe

They could also just make an informal peace, ally, then rack up the PP's against all the other players. French troops on Britsh ships.

JavaJoe, if you read Pippen's statement I was making a point based on the "even if you state that GB and France have to always be at war". Given that statement, an informal peace would be impossible. Given that statement ANY kind of peace would be impossible (which is pretty much what the special surrender conditions does).

[JavaJoe]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: JavaJoe

They could also just make an informal peace, ally, then rack up the PP's against all the other players. French troops on Britsh ships.

JavaJoe, if you read Pippen's statement I was making a point based on the "even if you state that GB and France have to always be at war". Given that statement, an informal peace would be impossible. Given that statement ANY kind of peace would be impossible (which is pretty much what the special surrender conditions does).

With that premise of course.

"always being at war" isn't a solution though, I think we are on that same page.

My point was the surrender terms, they could be house ruled into effect. Until v1.7 or so comes out to fix this.

[Marnutt]

Well to add my 2 cents into this debate. I feel that England and France should start the game "At War" and that the only way one can surrender to the other is via "unconditional surrender" (As it is done now as I remember) Now as for the specific terms of that surrender I cannot comment on. Been a few days since I last played [:D] I just feel that those two specific nations should not really be allowed to ally with each other. If you really think about it would it not be just as dangerous to have Russian corps on English ships (OK granted the French troops are better but there is not as many of them as the Russians)

[Skanvak]

ouff, I am really happy with those change? Now let finish the game. (Need more playtesters?)

[Pippin]

I feel that England and France should start the game "At War" and that the only way one can surrender to the other is via "unconditional surrender"

If French corps ever land in Britain, I highly doubt France will settle for a conditional anyhow.

[JavaJoe]

ORIGINAL: Marnutt

Well to add my 2 cents into this debate. I feel that England and France should start the game "At War" and that the only way one can surrender to the other is via "unconditional surrender" (As it is done now as I remember) Now as for the specific terms of that surrender I cannot comment on. Been a few days since I last played [:D] I just feel that those two specific nations should not really be allowed to ally with each other. If you really think about it would it not be just as dangerous to have Russian corps on English ships (OK granted the French troops are better but there is not as many of them as the Russians)

The Mandatory conditions for France surrendering to England are
Unconditional
C.6 - remove 1 leader - Napoleon

For England surrendering to France
Unconditional
C.1c - remove 2 fleets
C.5 - French access

A side note, if either loses dominant status, or another player gains dominant status then these conditions are dropped.

Now as far as the Russians on GB ships, they are just as good as Austrians, Prussians and Turks. As far as there being more Russians, game start Jan 1805 French factors to place are - 135i,5g,17c.

The Russians - 75i,5g,10c,2csk

Production base for the French $91 30mp - Russian $75 35mp

I'm not sure where there being more Russians applies.

[kylenapoleon]

I like where it is going, and I can live with the rules as you have them now.

Since I never got into EiH, I can live without those rules. Once I got my hands on TSG La Grande Armee, I never played EiA much anymore. I thought the rules for LGA were much better and the game played a lot like a Victory Game. The hexagon layout seemed to make the games much more realistic than the provinces of EiA.

I will get the game once it has been patched a time or two.

[Murat]

Just to be clear, although proportional losses are not implemented, I believe that the rule on militia only being allowed as losses for the first 2.0 morale loss still apllies.

[ktotwf]

I want this game out so bad I can hardly stand it.