Matrix Games Forums

1805 campaign, though, right? Prussia/Austria is almost always a "must" for their mutual survival, but Russia comes in and goes out somewhat regularly from that equation.

It's actually what divides so many solid alliance opportunities. Russia wants Poland or the player is otherwise bored and goes to war with Prussia over the whole thing -- hoping the Austrian will look the other way while Prussia is brutalized for a few months.

In 1805 I typically suggest a Prusso/Austro/Russo alliance through at least the first, if not the second great war with France.

Basically, pound France twice hard and then everyone is on more equal footing.

It's another reason I like 1792. There is no mandatory bad guy. There are numerous possible major player (at least on the land) and Britain has even less of a stranglehold on the sea.

This leads to a more free-form style of diplomacy and not so repetitive.

!805 MUST show the entire world against France in a united front
until Napoleon is in exile. Otherwise, you will be very very sorry you didnt do that.

This, imo, is further support of the notion that a "grand campaign" should really start earlier than 1805.

Your point is totally well taken (and I largely agree), but in the end it's the nuances of dealing with the Russian, the Turk and the Spaniard that makes the job of the Brit that much tougher as the "ring leader" -- and that much more interesting imo for everyone involved.

Forcing Spanish help in these situations is always dicey, for example. No matter what anyone says, the Spanish are completely on their own once the wars end. It's an incredible alliance that holds up to protect Spain -- and even then a clever French player can circumvent the protections and still have a solid army and an unconditional waiting around the corner to recoup some political points.

Better perhaps to work at getting Spain a pesky conditional (maybe a nice minor country pick like Holland!) at the outset -- but then what's the point of having Spain involved in the first place?

The Turk is near impossible without strong support from the Russian and Austrian. Guaranteed peace on its borders might keep Turkey out of the war -- but that "guarantee" looks pretty flimsy later on.

...

I have seen Turkey win with a bid of '1'

He just dropped his economy thru the floor, and never went to war. He won EASY. His people we can assume loved him.

That is one of the biggest things that people forget about Turkey. If Turkey doesn't get involved in any wars then she is sure to win the game. It is up to the Russian and that Austrian to pick on the Turk, especially the Austrian, after the French have pounded him into the dust. I believe that a Austrian- Russian alliance is essential to the survival of Austrian goals. The Russians on the other hand could use the defeated Turks as a Political buffer against any possible French invasion. The more PP or VP that Russia has prompts the French that much closer to invading Russia.
This in itself gives France a problem. How many troops does Napoleon leave in France to protect its borders from say Spain and most definatly GB. The othe question that France must answer is how am I going to re-supply the French losses against the Russians. Don't forget that Russia could kick out as much as a full corp every three months, where as it would take France about 5 months to get reinforcements to the front. And those Russian winters, Brrrrrrr.
Just my thoughts on the subject.

Martinmb