Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

2. Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable refernce, not that's it's wrong in this case, I'm just saying.

People time and again keep using Wikipedia to bolster arguments yet not understanding how unreliable it is.

Sometimes it is fine, but often it is just someones opinion they put up as "fact".

There are much better sources of info than Wiki if people could just use common sense and do simple research on almost any issue.

Before anything gets stirred up, which sometimes happens because I'm not sure everyone gets my humor since I don't do "tone" over the internet well........ did anyone get the South Park reference? Not that there are a lot of SP fans here, but I'm saying.

You're not my buddy friend![;)]

Yeah no worries! There actually were a fair number of British troops in Canada, nevertheless the Canadian militia did have some very nice sucesses, even though usually quite heavily outnumbered by the Americans they faced. So it is fair point of pride, and the fact remains that the American invasion of Canada was a failure, thanks in a large part to the bravery and fighting spirit of the militia.
 
Wikipedia is nice! It does not beat scholarly works of course but it's a nice place to get a distillation of viewpoints, and for basic facts it's usually pretty accurate.

ORIGINAL: Thresh
1 factor in a Corps against 127 factors (or 75, or 50, or 30) does not constitute a screening force IMO. It constitutes a speed bump the lead elements of the column sweep to the side. This does tend to slow the pace of the operations down, but stop them completely?

Like I said it is not a perfect rationale but as usual you could pick at any old thing in the ruleset that does not completely make sense in all circumstances. Everything in the rules is an abstraction at some point. And as for "stopping" well, the screening corps only stops you from moving PAST the area it is in, so that really IS a SLOWING effect. Can the slowing effect be too much in some cases? Maybe, but overall it works well.

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

ORIGINAL: Thresh
1 factor in a Corps against 127 factors (or 75, or 50, or 30) does not constitute a screening force IMO. It constitutes a speed bump the lead elements of the column sweep to the side. This does tend to slow the pace of the operations down, but stop them completely?

Like I said it is not a perfect rationale but as usual you could pick at any old thing in the ruleset that does not completely make sense in all circumstances. Everything in the rules is an abstraction at some point. And as for "stopping" well, the screening corps only stops you from moving PAST the area it is in, so that really IS a SLOWING effect. Can the slowing effect be too much in some cases? Maybe, but overall it works well.

In the classic EiA I think this worked very well against anyone who was invading Russia, given Russia's large corps sheet. This is where we used this rule a lot, it made it more difficult to invade Russia.

If its as slowing effect,then by all means lets slow the stack down by reducing its movement by one.

Stack enters an area with a Corps in it, it stops, if the odds are10:1 or greater, its an overrun, the stack keeps moving at -1 MP.

If 5:1, a trivial battle and the Stack stops.

The only issue I see with that is you probably have to set a minimum number of factors for the attacker in order for the 10:1 to take effect, otherwise its a trivial battle.

Todd

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

ORIGINAL: Thresh
1 factor in a Corps against 127 factors (or 75, or 50, or 30) does not constitute a screening force IMO. It constitutes a speed bump the lead elements of the column sweep to the side. This does tend to slow the pace of the operations down, but stop them completely?

Like I said it is not a perfect rationale but as usual you could pick at any old thing in the ruleset that does not completely make sense in all circumstances. Everything in the rules is an abstraction at some point. And as for "stopping" well, the screening corps only stops you from moving PAST the area it is in, so that really IS a SLOWING effect. Can the slowing effect be too much in some cases? Maybe, but overall it works well.

Look, it's fine if you want to propose alternate rulesets, but I think the FIRST step is to implement the rule as written.
 
As we have said the game worked great with the rule as it was. I am not opposed to all sorts of house rules and what have you but lets start with the actual rules.
 
Pointless to get into a niggling debate over whether it is realistic in all situations. You seem to ignore that this is a highly abstracted strategy game, and as such imho good gameplay comes before realism.

Original rules like light ships, transports, Additonal minors with diplomatic influence rules, Every minor getting a garrison on a map that never came in a box?

Those orginal rules?

Look, I support the idea of "lets get all the original rules right", but lets be honest, if the original rule was wrong, or bad, lets get it fixed when and while we can.

I am all for abstracting the rules when and where necessary, but there comes a point when you can go to the absurd with them. The current trivial battle RAW is IMO one of these. It's not a bad rule, but its a not a good rule either.

Lets be honest, if the game was as abstract as you claim it to be, there would be no morale, no chit picks, and fewer leaders.

1 factor stopping 127 is not good abstract gameplay.

Todd

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Look, it's fine if you want to propose alternate rulesets, but I think the FIRST step is to implement the rule as written.

As we have said the game worked great with the rule as it was. I am not opposed to all sorts of house rules and what have you but lets start with the actual rules.

Pointless to get into a niggling debate over whether it is realistic in all situations. You seem to ignore that this is a highly abstracted strategy game, and as such imho good gameplay comes before realism.

Whatever weird rule you come up with to "fix" 5:1 trivial combat (which WORKS FINE AS IS) we can poke holes in all day. You don't really seem to get that. You aren't "fixing" anything or making anything "more realistic", you are just adding needless complication. The orginal rule is simple, straightforward, and has a healthy positive effect on gameplay. That's all there is to it!

A healthy positive effect? 

Yes the rule is simple.  Yes its straightforward.  Yet in a game based on history, it engenders ahistorical results and effects. Find me a result, any result from 1792-1815 where 1,000 men stopped an entire army for a month and I'll drop this argument quicker than differential calculus

The rule isn't as fine as is IMO.  People can poke as many holes in it as they can to any proposed solution, including mine. 

As I've said, we all have our windmills...

Lol.. What matters is the effect.  None of EiA is realistic.
Manpower? economy? war? diplomatie?  the only thing that is realistic is the names on the map.

It is a game!

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

You're not my buddy friend![;)]

You're not my friend, guy!

yamma

ORIGINAL: Thresh

1 factor stopping 127 is not good abstract gameplay.

Just a point: The 1 factor doesn't technically "stop" the marauding army. Yes, it stops its movement. However, the army CAN reinforce another battle. In the original rules, you could only reinforce at the end of a combat day. In EIANW, you can reinforce after any round. But (and I don't know if EIANW properly implemented this from the old rules), a trivial combat did not "count" as a combat for reinforcement purposes.

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Whatever weird rule you come up with to "fix" 5:1 trivial combat (which WORKS FINE AS IS) we can poke holes in all day. You don't really seem to get that. You aren't "fixing" anything or making anything "more realistic", you are just adding needless complication. The orginal rule is simple, straightforward, and has a healthy positive effect on gameplay. That's all there is to it!

In your opinion.

How did you solve the problem of knowing in advance whether a corps counter was a bluff or not? On a computer, this is easy. But, in face-to-face, it's impossible. The rule saved absolutely no time, and, in fact, added time to the process.

The screening corps would always try to withdraw (or retreat inside the city if there was one) so at most its one die roll and away you go. So no, it did not "add to the process" in any serious time consuming way.
 
Since you are beating a dead horse there isn't much more to be said, except, the optional should be there.

Pointless to get into a niggling debate over whether it is realistic in all situations

 
Ah yes, but it is this very tendancy that has resulted in the entire EiH rules set.  People like to niggle.
 
yamma

ORIGINAL: Thresh

A healthy positive effect? 

Yes the rule is simple.  Yes its straightforward.  Yet in a game based on history, it engenders ahistorical results and effects. Find me a result, any result from 1792-1815 where 1,000 men stopped an entire army for a month and I'll drop this argument quicker than differential calculus

The rule isn't as fine as is IMO.  People can poke as many holes in it as they can to any proposed solution, including mine. 

As I've said, we all have our windmills...

Show me historically where France's entire army suffered no casualties from disease, desertion and starvation and was able to move 3000km while doing so and we can talk "realism".

ORIGINAL: KenClark

ORIGINAL: Thresh

A healthy positive effect? 

Yes the rule is simple.  Yes its straightforward.  Yet in a game based on history, it engenders ahistorical results and effects. Find me a result, any result from 1792-1815 where 1,000 men stopped an entire army for a month and I'll drop this argument quicker than differential calculus

The rule isn't as fine as is IMO.  People can poke as many holes in it as they can to any proposed solution, including mine. 

As I've said, we all have our windmills...

Show me historically where France's entire army suffered no casualties from disease, desertion and starvation and was able to move 3000km while doing so and we can talk "realism".

What are you asking for? What game mechanic or event does this question refer to? In other words, at what point in a game does the French army march 3000km without losing any factors.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: KenClark

ORIGINAL: Thresh

A healthy positive effect? 

Yes the rule is simple.  Yes its straightforward.  Yet in a game based on history, it engenders ahistorical results and effects. Find me a result, any result from 1792-1815 where 1,000 men stopped an entire army for a month and I'll drop this argument quicker than differential calculus

The rule isn't as fine as is IMO.  People can poke as many holes in it as they can to any proposed solution, including mine. 

As I've said, we all have our windmills...

Show me historically where France's entire army suffered no casualties from disease, desertion and starvation and was able to move 3000km while doing so and we can talk "realism".

What are you asking for? What game mechanic or event does this question refer to? In other words, at what point in a game does the French army march 3000km without losing any factors.

I think that he's just saying the game doesn't have to be "realistic" since it already isn't.

The 3000km he is refering to is the fact that the French can damn near go from Italy to Denmark without having to force march before any other country's corps are moved. That's pretty unrealistic, IMO.

Personally, I don't care about realism either. It's a game and if something is an improvement or adds balance then that's great, even if it's not "realistic".