Matrix Games Forums

I always said that Matrix should respect the EiA rules- that means both no limit to corps in area and optional depot rule.

"is in my oppinion there to make it expensive and difficult to make monster stacks."

Well, ok, if this is your oppinion. For me it is just unrealistic and rediculess to supply i.e. la grande armee with just one single depot.

Of course it is also silly if a player would have to choose between an additional (cav) leader and a corps to move to an area only just because there is a 15 units limit.
Can you imagine Berthier to say "ups, you may only move Murat or the guard to Ulm, please select one, my dear Emperor Napoleon"...of cause I protest against such a absurd rule. Battle of Leipzig i.e. would be impossible with it. And now I am "responsible" that Marshall removes this arbitrary limit but fails to inlude an optional rule so many persons asked for ? I don´t think so.

I agree that it is rediculess to supply la grande armee with just one single depot. But this is just a game. Not a lesson in history or else we wouldn't need dice to know who won the battles.
 
I am not saying that you are responsible for single handed having persuaded Marshall or anyone to change anything, I am saying that you share the responsibility with everyone that spoke against the 15 counter limit.. No more no less.
 
The 4 corps per depot rule is equal for all players, either you have those extra costs to movement or you dont create stacks more than about 6 corps high. Wether it is realistic or not is not something I care about. If it was I think we should re-think a lot of forrage values.
 
Whenever I have played the game and we have voted for optionals, the reason for selecting suply limits per depot have always been that it makes monster stacking expensive. I care little about how realistic it is as there are many other aspects of the game that are totally unrealistic. What I care about is game balance. And yes it can be interpreted as a french advantage to have 15 counter limits, but that is in my experience not true. The wars I have seen that have been hardest for france to win have been those where the allied forces have made 2 or 3 stacks the largest of those being 12 corps under charles.

I agree that it is rediculess to supply la grande armee with just one single depot. But this is just a game

of course it is a game, and indeed- as you say- gamebalance is very important. But is is not "just" a game [:)]
(Furthermore, you can indeed use it as a lesson in history- just look at the cleavages, so often they are the same in game as in history. And thats a main reason why I like this game that much.)

There is a good rule that helps to simulate the problems how to supply a large army, takes care of the game balance- but it gets not included. Thats the problem, not the fact that we both and a lot more players did not want to have this arbitrary 15 units limit.

(("But this is just a game" is a "good" argument for any damage someone might do to this game- skip force march, strategic rating, alternate dominant powers, achieving or losing dominant status- who needs Napoleon or Wellington, leave away Russia, etc., it is not a lesson in history.))

Boys, Boys

Let's get it out and then the debates can rage anew.

I am sure there will be updates and changes as we play.

I agree the 4 corp limit should be added later, ASAP. The current set up isnt so bad, however. While one depot can supple an entire monster stack, no one can supple an army at Moscow with out at least 4 depots, via naval invasion. Of course, the point that he is then limited by what depots he can use elsewhere is probably mute since anyone actually at Moscow probably has their full attention right there.

I also don't think its bad the game is out now. Patch it later.

An idea; since the areas in EiA are so huge, one depot may indeed supply unlimited corps, but how about increasing the cost to supple in stages, i.e. the first four corps, then x2 cost for every group of three after.

yamma

An idea; since the areas in EiA are so huge, one depot may indeed supply unlimited corps, but how about increasing the cost to supple in stages, i.e. the first four corps, then x2 cost for every group of three after.

 
 
That's not a bad idea and possibility not to difficult to program in????
 
Also, just out of interest when was most of the program work done? pre 2003?

Does the PBEM support Outlook, and using 3rd party email services? Or does it have its own setup for sending and receiving info? Just a question.

Sounds like the winter movement rules would change the feel of the game greatly. Especially early, who has the funding for pushing forward all winter?
 
My feeling has always been that the 4 corp/depot rule hinders the french, and makes Russia far more difficult to attack than it already is. (and have adjusted my bids accordingly). It will be great to play it out no matter what the options are though! [8D]

Yeah, I played my first three EiA (as GB, GB and Au) without using any of the optional rules, and they were fun enough to have me hanging out here for three years or so waiting for the game to be finished.

yamma

More difficult than it was? Taking 400,000-500,000 (?) guys into Russia and coming out with 26,000-50,000? Those are some pretty aweful numbers.

Jason

ORIGINAL: borner

Sounds like the winter movement rules would change the feel of the game greatly. Especially early, who has the funding for pushing forward all winter?

My feeling has always been that the 4 corp/depot rule hinders the french, and makes Russia far more difficult to attack than it already is. (and have adjusted my bids accordingly). It will be great to play it out no matter what the options are though! [8D]

I was talking about in the game, not historically. Moscow is hard enough to get to when you just have to worry about one chian of depots, let alone 3 or 4.
 
Historically it would be like getting your army into Moscow in the dead of winter, having that depot line cut, and having to march your way out while being out of supply. Not fun.
 
 

I dont think the wintermovment rule, will do anything for russia! In clear weather the russians have 3/4 the speed of the french. In winther only ½! In other words will winteroffensive be an advantage for the french. Because of the standstill of the russians
I think an -1 movemodifier for infcorps, and -2 for cavcorps in winter, will do the job.
 
Byt lets see the game and let the changes be made after that. 4 years for my accout is a long time[:(]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

ORIGINAL: Frank McNally

I am only playing my first full game of this currently, but isn't a bid cap of 20 quite low?  I thought bids in the 30s were not too crazy for France.

Frank,

Too low, too high, it should be unlimited or factors should be the cost instead, etc., etc.

The game plays the same with a 20 VP cap and you will no longer hear the excuse from the French or British player that they don’t have a chance to win due to their high bid cost, so they are quitting now that they are getting beaten badly. They will find other excuses, but not that one.

Richard

FYI, the bid cap was recently raised to 30 VPs.

Now . . .

Is there anyone (or more) who wants to give reason why this cap should be removed (i.e. making it possible to bid astronomically)? Likewise, is there anyone (or more) that prefers the cap (what’s your preference)?

Richard

I like the cap.  I like the cap even lower, but 30 is fine.  I like the cap because it creates a measurable quanity in bidding, one everyone will understand.  You bid high for what you want, and low for what you are willing to get stuck with.  It also stops cold those morons who care nothing about playing to score VP but just want the nation they want, everything else be damned.  I once saw a bid or 400 points for Fr.  It was a disgusting display of disregard for the spirit and rules of the game.  The limit creates fairness.  If two people really want the same nation, then a tieing bid of 30 can be resolved by fair and equal die rolls.
 
I also like the ability to not bid if everyone is in agreement on who they want to play.
 
yamma

Lower is better. Too many yahoos will bid whatever to play France or GB and then bail when they realize they can't win but had fun for the first couple of years.

There is no need to limit bids, but that limit (30) is not a big problem. In original game, there was not bid limits.
 
If someone will bid 100 from France, he will not win. I would be glad to play another country and let him bid that foolish bid [:'(]
 
 

ORIGINAL: j-s

There is no need to limit bids, but that limit (30) is not a big problem. In original game, there was not bid limits.

If someone will bid 100 from France, he will not win. I would be glad to play another country and let him bid that foolish bid [:'(]

Yes you are right if someone bid 100 for France he would not win. Neither would you cause in 1808 when he gets bored of playing with no chance of winning he will quit the game and you will never find anyone who would continue a country that is effectively out of the game.

And what fun will it be to start a game that will never finish? I would leave a game as soon as anyone made a bid over 40 for France.
So a cap of 30 suits me fine. ^_^

You are indeed correct hlj

ORIGINAL: hlj

ORIGINAL: j-s

There is no need to limit bids, but that limit (30) is not a big problem. In original game, there was not bid limits.

If someone will bid 100 from France, he will not win. I would be glad to play another country and let him bid that foolish bid [:'(]

Yes you are right if someone bid 100 for France he would not win. Neither would you cause in 1808 when he gets bored of playing with no chance of winning he will quit the game and you will never find anyone who would continue a country that is effectively out of the game.

And what fun will it be to start a game that will never finish? I would leave a game as soon as anyone made a bid over 40 for France.
So a cap of 30 suits me fine. ^_^

If someone bid 100 for France, I think he cares nothing about victory points. He will quit, if game is not going as he hopes (wins, wins, wins). Some players just don't care about victory points, really. It's important that every player are going to play for victory and thats made clear before game is started.

I bid progressive agressive bidding for Le Grande Armee ..
IDG