Matrix Games Forums

I prefer an ending date later than 1815 because you can't assume that Napoleon was defeated and exiled. His vitality could have extended several years beyond the historical dates. If he had not wasted the French army in Russia in 1812, lost marginally at Leipzig, been deposed in 1814, and lost again in his 100 day return in 1815, the entire fabric of European history would have been different - and Napoleon's legacy much altered.

And isn't this kind of possibility why we play simulation games in the first place?

you could always extend the end date to 1856, and assume that Napoleon III had carried on his uncles European war.

Originally posted by Sir Neil
you could always extend the end date to 1856, and assume that Napoleon III had carried on his uncles European war.

Actually, I'm just suggesting that the game ought to end, as the Napoleonic wars did historically, with the demise or final deposition of Buonaparte. The possibility of a return from first exile ought to be built in. What happens in Europe after Napoleon's exit is an interesting game subject, but, of course, would be another game ...

Originally posted by pasternakski


Actually, I'm just suggesting that the game ought to end, as the Napoleonic wars did historically, with the demise or final deposition of Buonaparte. The possibility of a return from first exile ought to be built in. What happens in Europe after Napoleon's exit is an interesting game subject, but, of course, would be another game ...

I agree with you pasternakski, it wouldn't be much fun to continue to play after Napoleon's death and it is true, the game HAS to end sometime. The advent of railroads and technological advancements in artillery by the French after the Napoleonic Epoch (just to name two) make playing beyond 1821 a different piece of cake altogether.

I also agree that a possibility of a return after an initial exile is a must, by why does the Emperor have to be exiled at all?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for something comepletely different....

Gee, I wonder if this game will model the deaths of commanders in battle? Is it possible for a Napoleon or a Wellington to get captured or killed in battle? I know the the level of play is strategic, but those sorts of things did happen.

Hi, Killing Wellington would be a disater for the English, however he was not the head of state. Heads of state (the players tha contol them) that risk themselves to impact combat must be prepared for the ultimate disater. There should be a very heavy penalty for losing a Nations leader in combat. (Not every Nations leader is worth risking in combat) Napoleon must not be immune but since he was on many fields be harder to injure. I do not want to attempt to suggest the specifics of such rules. (I'm a chicken I'll just say they need considering")

The type of goverment for a nation will help decide if the "Head of State" impacts combat. But if such a leader is lost that nation should be under severe restictions (minus victory points)

I completely agree, le Tondu, there is no imperative reason for Napoleon to be exiled - it's just one condition under which the game could end and victory tallied (equally if he dies of food poisoning or Josephine's dagger). If he is, though, there ought to be some mechanism allowing his return, under certain circumstances and conditions. When you consider that Nappy's return for his last 100 days happened nearly 190 years ago and still captures the imagination of many (including all of us who love to play Napoleonic era games), EiA ought to accommodate that magic.

I know what you mean. If in 1805 Napoleon catches the odd cannonball in the midriff, thereby separating arse from appetite, carrying on as the French loses a lot (if not all) of its appeal. Oh, well, open up another bag of pretzels, crack another Labatt's, and game on, sez I.

I also agree that this game just can't go on beyond the early 19th century, for exactly the reasons you name. The world was changing. Warfare had changed in ways Napoleon didn't understand even while he lived (and look at what happened when nations tried to wage Napoleonic-style offensive warfare after the era had ended - even up through WWI).

Mogami, you amaze me. Not only are you just about always right on over on the UV threads, you show up here and act intelligent, too. Renaissance homme par excellence, n'est ce pas? "Mogami de la bonne chance," oui?

Mogami doesn't sleep

I love the idea of expanding the timing of the game -- the variant "Vive La Revolution" is a personal favorite (so much more level vis a vis the overall playing field).

I just hope that the game includes more in the way of leaders. That's the one major area (*gasp*, did he say this) where I could see a divergence from the "classic" game (this means something if you know how much of a purist I am about EiA).

Having read a lot of history concerning this era, there are many leaders (like Lannes) who were awesome and could be represented.

There was an effort a while back on the development of a broader timeframe variant for EiA which included a lot more leaders. Poniatowski, for example, would also be cool.

Just some random thoughts...

- Reknoy

Vous êtes trop aimable

I agree fully.

With the Napoleonic period bringing many things to the evolution of warfare, the importance of leadership and combat arms based doctrine were at the forefront. (Leadership - the dynamic element of the combat power).

So more detail of the leaders that made the difference in the battles and campaigns of the era would be a great plus.