Matrix Games Forums

I think the EiH 3.0 rules were chosen because AT THE TIME they were the current set. Keep in mind these guys started developing this in 2002.

With the new naval unit types and additional minor countries, maybe the more recent EiH v4.0 should be the OOB to shoot for as the EiANW defaults? Considering the changes in this adaptation, the "new" OOBs should be assessed for play balance on their own merits once all the bugs are fixed. Either which way, when Marshall starts filling in the OOBs for all the other scenarios he may as well be consistent - either use original OOBs or the updated EiH v4.0.

I'm hoping that into the future an editor is released that allows us to change OOBs

It won't be much of an editor if it doesn't. I have to agree with "In the end, EIANW is what it is....." Marshall should be allowed some creative license as the game developer to make whatever compromises he thinks appropriate. Everyone does not have to agree 100% right now, and can use the editor later to create an original EiA version or the various EiH versions or something completely different.

Pardon me for jumping in with a question: I ask because I'm thinking of purchasing EiANW. What was EiH? I mean, what does it stand for, and was it a computer game or a board game? EiA I have played as a board game, so I think I know what you're referring to there.

And, do you mean that in the EiANW computer game, you cannot put Russian cavalry into a Russian Corps? In 1805, that's not strictly historical. But later, in 1812, it sounds right.

Anyway, I gather that the allocation of forces to corps is too restrictive for some veteran players of EiA? Is that the gist of this thread? How big a negative is that? Enough that I shouldn't buy the game?

Pardon all the questions, but the price is high for this game, and I don't want to be disappointed.

EiH is Empires in Harm, a variant of the Empires in Arms orginial. It was also a boardgame like EiA
 
You can learn more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih/ and more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih-files/
 
Yes, in EIANW you cannot have cavalry in an Infantry Corps so you need a Cavalry Corps.  ie. The Russian I Corps was 18 I/M, 2 C in EiA, it has no C in EIANW and is 16 I/M. (Smaller and no Cav)
 
Some veteran players are not pleased with this change, as it changes the concentration of force they may have been used to.
 
Negative is relative...would it bother you?  The game remains playable but EIANW is very different from the orginal EiA that you may have been use to.
 
I would suggest spending some time reading through to forums so that you can make a more informed choice - lots to read and learn!

ORIGINAL: AresMars

EiH is Empires in Harm, a variant of the Empires in Arms orginial. It was also a boardgame like EiA

You can learn more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih/ and more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih-files/

Yes, in EIANW you cannot have cavalry in an Infantry Corps so you need a Cavalry Corps.  ie. The Russian I Corps was 18 I/M, 2 C in EiA, it has no C in EIANW and is 16 I/M. (Smaller and no Cav)

Some veteran players are not pleased with this change, as it changes the concentration of force they may have been used to.

Negative is relative...would it bother you?  The game remains playable but EIANW is very different from the orginal EiA that you may have been use to.

I would suggest spending some time reading through to forums so that you can make a more informed choice - lots to read and learn!

I had no idea that they removed cavalry from corps, that just doesn't make any sense. Why would they do this? It couldn't have been difficult to implement and it totally changes things around.

So now, in order to not give up calvary superiority you need to bring an extra corps into the fight, which will bring down your factor count OR will decrease your leader rating.

Is MG planning on changing this anytime soon?

Yes, in EIANW you cannot have cavalry in an Infantry Corps so you need a Cavalry Corps.

Prussian infantry corps can have guards and cavalry. I don't fully understand the basis for all the OOBs, but obviously EiANW can allow mixed unit types. The editor should allow any OOB version to be implemented.

A more fundamental question for Marshall is whether he is willing to reconsider his default OOBs. I sense limited enthusiasm for EiH v3.0. Maybe the original EiA OOBs would be best, and then allow modders to implement EiH later.

ORIGINAL:  pzgndr

A more fundamental question for Marshall is whether he is willing to reconsider his default OOBs.  I sense limited enthusiasm for EiH v3.0.  Maybe the original EiA OOBs would be best, and then allow modders to implement EiH later.

In the end, you can expect the Land OOB's to be adjusted by the players as soon as that becomes an option for players.
 
Then we will have a round of discussion/debate/arguements about what will be ACCEPTABLE OOB's for future games....happy times!  [;)]
 
Returning the Naval OOB to it's original EiA standard will be a different kettle of fish....I don't think that is ever going to happen.
 
 
 

I think this should be fixed next patch
back to original EiA (ie the way it was meant to be)

and then when the editor comes out people can change it to their hearts desire
Till then will this be fixed soon...

There's nothing to be "fixed", since the OOB is essentially working as designed. 

Thank you. As I am looking for a strategic game (that I don't have to keep up on the dining room table) to generate miniatures battles, the corps organization is not such a problem for me. I'm going to read more posts and threads and see if that's doable.

Thank you for your response.

ORIGINAL: Grognot

There's nothing to be "fixed", since the OOB is essentially working as designed. 

EiANW also essentially works as designed, maybe it doesnt need any fixes either.

I doubt that it's deliberate that phases get skipped, that the AI randomly takes control of human players, and that AI nations arbitrarily surrender to France even when they're not at war with France.

In the end, you can expect the Land OOB's to be adjusted by the players as soon as that becomes an option for players.

Then we will have a round of discussion/debate/arguements about what will be ACCEPTABLE OOB's for future games....happy times!

Returning the Naval OOB to it's original EiA standard will be a different kettle of fish....I don't think that is ever going to happen.

Yes, once we get an editor the OOBs should be easily adjusted. It's six to one and half a dozen to another whether the defaults are the original EiA OOB and later gets modded to EiH or vice versa. For now I don't see where it makes that much difference while the game mechanics issues are still being resolved.

Since playgroups in the past seemed to evolve into EiA purists and EiHers, I would expect that to continue. The good news should be that both camps can eventually get what they want, at least as far as OOBs are concerned. Marshall should ensure that the game and editor can accomodate both. I don't see why not.

For the naval OOB, why couldn't that return to the EiA standard? I suppose only heavy fleets and heavy ships would be needed. Just delete the new light and transport fleets. Or were the transport capacities different? This may be a parameter that could be included in the editor.

In the original EiA, there were no heavy / light / transport distinctions, and one fleet could carry one corps (excepting guerillas, cossacks, freikorps and insurrection corps) plus leaders, regardless of how many ships were in the fleet or how many factors were in the corps. 

I think returning to the original EIA Naval system is moot now....It is very unlikely that Marshall wants to go back and rework that part of the programming.
 
I enjoyed the original rules and someone (Jimmer I beileve) wrote an excellent report on fleets combat (- GB Specific -) that explains the Naval war in EiA.  This is the system that I know best with the addition of the Advance Naval Combat Rules and modifed British Morale.
 
With EiH, they introduced the different types of ships (Hvy, Light, Tranports) and Squadron and Fleets, as well as, a bunch of other stuff that made the Naval game different (I am still on the fence on them) but more labour intensive - a computer version makes it easier to manage but I am not sure how much it really adds.....Are their any EiH purists that care to comment?
 

Personally, I haven't played the CEiA, but I don't think I would like the new naval units and how they operate. It just doesn't sound like EiA to me, it sounds like too much modding. Then again, I never really cared for most of EiH.

I kinda feel a little foolish posting this due to the fact that I have only played 2 rounds of the original boardgame. Upon playing the computer version, I too thought that the naval system was a little wierd and awkward at first but I've come round. One point of contention though is that if your corps is a little too big to board the fleet, you should be able to drop some into the local garrison instead of having to wait another whole turn.

I really enjoy the game overall. I wish the AI was WAY tougher, but I am encouraged by the support shown in these forums for it's continued development and tweaking. Keep up the good work gentlemen because it's much appreciated.


Adrian

Well, you shouldn't have to drop forces from a corps, a fleet should carry a corps regardless of size. Does this make "sense"? No, but it's the way the game was designed to play.

I guess I'm just a classic EiA fanatic.