RE: AAR - Ralegh
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:33 pm
Don't form any conclusions yet folks, another chapter in the AAR is coming right up...
Yes. That is quite worrisome. Hopefully that gets fixed.ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
ORIGINAL: Roads
In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.
Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....
I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.
I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?
ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
ORIGINAL: Roads
In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.
Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....
I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.
I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?
ORIGINAL: Norden
(snip)
I agree, it is a change to have France and England beeing able to take conditionals from each other. As the main contenders and the games main driving forces, they are required to surrender unconditionally to each other. So thats changed. But also in the boardgame there was an option to let them start at peace with each other, so maybe, what we are seeing here are options. On the other hand, Raleigh stated, he'd chosen all standard options...
Finally France is not lending money, but paying reparations, which England choose as victory condition.
Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....
ORIGINAL: Jabba
Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....
So is this there as an optional rule in the computer version?
ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum
Thanks for the AAR.
Sadly, it has made me less interested in purchasing the game.
To see the British running around with land armies besieging Paris and winning and getting a conditional peace out of France in 1805 shows just how broken the game can be.
The AI appears incompetent.
Agree with all the rest except this: BR will declare war on FR just to gobble up the PPs from trashing their fleet and then go for their win. Once the fleet is trashed, France most likely will not build it instead relying on econ manip and quick border raids to keep their PPs flowing.ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
(snip)
At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).
ORIGINAL: Murat
Agree with all the rest except this: BR will declare war on FR just to gobble up the PPs from trashing their fleet and then go for their win. Once the fleet is trashed, France most likely will not build it instead relying on econ manip and quick border raids to keep their PPs flowing.ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
(snip)
At the end of the day, the game will turn into a race between (1) GB who will have absolute rule of the seas (but who won't want to DOW france because GB has nothing to gain from war with FR) and (2) FR who not only has its normal Giant army but now has total freedom of the seas (and who will not DoW England because it has nothing to gain from it either).
ORIGINAL: Murat
[&:] Britain wins(won) by default and has(had) the ability to deduct pps from others. France needs(ed) almost 10pp an econ phase just to get to 100% of their victory condition. Fleet movement is faster than land movement so a Britain at war can keep the French running all over the board trying to stop the few British corps once the French fleet is sunk and the hulls added to Britain. Chasing the Brits all over is wasted time as you pointed out since French pps are closer at hand so Britain really does not lose in a DoW. Lending units is new to the computer game, somethng you could not do in the past and I do not know what the rules are for getting them back but you can forget me lending any portion of the Grande Armee out if I am France. With the possible exception of a Spanish ally, everyone else is target practice.
ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?
the FR don't need to run everywhere to keep the Brits at bay, they just need to leave a small corps in SP and TU (perhaps other small targets) - if the Brits appear, drop a good leader there.
You don't need to leave a large army anywhere. Though if I've just drubbed Prussia (for example) and GB wants to attack them afterwards to vulture some points, I'll happily ally with PR and send him 100men and a leader - just to deny GB the points.
though i'm speaking of the old game, i don't know how the computer-game lending units works or course
FR can easily prevent GB from earning any pp.s in land battles versus SP/AU/PR (those nations simply decline field combat until FR arrives, and if GB is foolish enough to follow them into the interior of their nations, they risk having the Grand Armee arrive in between them and the sea - FR can move *very* fast with the double-turn.
GB has a tough time squeezing many pp.s out of Russia, due to the comparative size of the armies.
Which leaves TU as the only real target if you are at war with FR - whereas if GB keeps peace with FR, he can whack SP for points also - and even vulture Prussia (maybe even Austria) post loss-to-france
Anyway - I as GB would not DoW FR, I think I'll make points faster that way.
My style of play as FR is "I can beat up SP/PR/AU, but no one else can!"
You as GB would DoW FR - that's OK - that's why the game has such great replay value!
maybe one day we'll get a chance to try our ideas out on each other.... : )
ORIGINAL: Murat
ORIGINAL: timothy_stone
I've never (*ever*) seen a game where GB wins via the default (no one makes the VP total) clause.
Have you? with players who knew what they were doing?
Well no but we have had good players. GB has gotten a win though.
Well under the old rules stacking with these nations requires you to be allied with them and at war with Britain. You also are not allowed to loan anyone corps or leaders except under the peace consition.
Sea movement can also be doubled and you are talking about a 7 move over the sea zones (which themselves are large) -v- a 4 over land. Yes withdrawl into the interior can work but some minors then are left open. I actually want to try my strategies against several people here! I am most eager for battle!
ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com
Limit of 4 sea spaces was an optional rule (sea movement was reduced by one hex to a minimum of four per corp carried over X, I forget the particulars. We used it once then dropped it).
In the board game, you cannot ally with a nation for one year after the end of a war or the breaking of a treaty.