Most controversial EIA rule...

[malcolm_mccallum]

Ours wasn't a controversial rule so much as a real problem with game focus.

I mean, you can tell someone over and over again that the winner is the one with the most VPs at the end of the game, but they'll still define a win for themselves anyway they like.

Our worst example was when I played Russia and for 3 consecutive years Turkey, Austria, and Prussia launched campaigns against me. My only ally was Britain and France was keeping him out of affairs.

The three fighting me didn't care that they were feeding me VPs or letting France roll toward an easy win, they simply wanted to crush my Russia.

Likewise, he have had numerous cases of people realising that they were so far out of reach for achieving victory that they decided that the only option for fun for them was to play spoiler.

So how do you make VPs and the winning conditions matter but still give rewards for smaller objectives? How do you make the finish line matter when you are three or four real time months away from that and it is so hard to see clearly?

[NeverMan]

Yeah, probably. It's been awhile since I last played. Yeah, that's right cuz it's 3 (5) and 5 (7) without (with RM).

Sorry for this mistype. Also, it's PP not VP. VP are only collected every Econ Manip round.

[carnifex]

Well, you could argue that if someone is playing spoiler, then that is a situation created by the other players. If you're going to take someone for every PP you can get and continuously take their provinces and corps, it's not surprising that later on that person will play the vengeful spite card.

Not saying that's what happened in your game, but I've seen it happen often enough on my own.

[Pippin]

Likewise, he have had numerous cases of people realising that they were so far out of reach for achieving victory that they decided that the only option for fun for them was to play spoiler.

Ok I am guilty of being a Mr. Spoiler in the game too. But to my defence (before everyone hangs me here), I only did this to get even! Yes, the last time I spoiled it for someone was when I got seriously backstabed by two bastards I shall not mention here. My back was broken, and I was down and out for the rest of the count. Not wanting to be a real spoiler, I still stayed in the game despite knowing I had no hope. Well, as the months went by and not to my surprise one of those bastards I didn't mention was sailing ahead in the VPs. Would have been a sure thing, except I threw whatever was left at him and insisted on doing everything in my power to bring him down, despite it was foolish. I even aided my own enemies in order to do so. Har har!

Sure, he was upset (mad as hell to be exact). While screaming how he had that game won were it not for my kamakazie play, I had to remind him had he not BS'ed me, he would not have been in such a predicament. I was just getting even.

Next few games after that went by like a charm, everyone was too afraid to BS me even when they had the perfect chance.

[hlj]

7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat: The loser is retreated one area by the victor. This occurs after pursuit (if any).
7.5.2.10.3.1: All retreats must be into an adjacent land area that is closest (any closest area, if several qualify equally) to the nearest depot of any nationality in force, or if none is on the map, towards that force's nearest controlled national capital city.
7.5.2.10.3.2: A retreating force may never be split up.
7.5.2.10.3.3: If the area retreated to contains an unbesieged enemy corps, cossack, freikorps or depot garrison, the force is retreated one more area (same rules as 7.5.2.10.3. 1), etc., until an open area is reached.
7.5.2.10.3.4: Retreat across a crossing arrow or onto ships is not permitted.
7.5.2.10.3.5: A force may not retreat into the same area twice in the same retreat.
7.5.2.10.3.6: A force must surrender (A army factors and leaders in the force become prisoners) if no retreat route is available.

The problem with these rules is not teleportation.
The problem is with the defenition of the goal of the retreat.

What if Napoleon attacks Charles in the mountains in tyrol. Charles is standing on a depot and because he wants to add the depot garision to the battle he decides not to destroy the depot.

IF Napoleon wins then the nearest depot would be the one in the area of the battle, and any surrounding area would be eligeble to retreat to. If Nap chose to let a corps stay in one of those areas, then he could let charles retreat to it. Now the nearest depot is still the one where the battle took place, so the only elligeble area would pr rule 7.5.2.10.3.1 be the area that the battle took place. And Charles would be forced to surrender pr rule 7.5.2.10.3.5 and 7.5.2.10.3.6.

[pfnognoff]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

- For a supply chain to be valid is it Depot -Area - Depot or is it Depot - Area - Area - Depot? We finally agreed it is the second option just because max range you can pay for supply is clearly Depot - Area - Army.

I think it's depot-area-depot too, but why couldn't they make that rule more clear?

I know a lot of EiA rules are vague, but it seems to me 7.2.3 is pretty explicit:

7.2.3 DEPOTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A new depot may be placed within two unblocked areas of an already existing (before this Turn) depot...

"Within two unblocked areas" - so you can have Depot-Depot (1 area away) or Depot-Area-Depot (2 areas away).

I somehow new that I was not totally mistaken when I said depot placement is vague and controversial, and here is why :

7.2.3.2 SUPPLY CHAIN DEFINITION: A "supply chain" is a series of one major power's depots that are placed no more than two areas apart and lead back to a supply source of that major power.

"No more than two areas apart", to me a non native english speaker, casts a shadow over "Within two unblocked areas" [:)]

[carnifex]

The EiA rulebook would have been SO MUCH CLEARER if there were more graphic examples of setup and play. Like there would never ever be any disagreement if the authors only provided a simple diagram - see? this is how it looks, depot, empty area, depot, it's all right there in the picture.

Plus, yeah, it should have been re-written With bullet points!

[yammahoper]

The rule that states corps perish if left at sea. As if an entire army would allow itself to be killed by starvation at sea.

The rule that states you may not enter another major powers territory without permission. I say go on in, beach the corps or take the short cut, and if te other nation doesnt like it, let them declare war (does anyone imagine Germany asked Belgium for permission to move through their territory?).

I have no problem with retreat and potential teleportation. This is a strategic game more than a tactical level game. Stuff happens.

The total lack of ability of an army to avoid an enemy army when marching/moving. I mean, if the areas are so large you can teleport through the enemy, why not sneak by him when marching? Often, lines of 1 factor corps get placed to slow marches, it is annoying.

The inability to destroy an enemy fleet. Unless one side greatly out numbers another, naval combat rules do not allow for complete victory like you can generate in the land battles.

Yamma

[Pippin]

The rule that states corps perish if left at sea. As if an entire army would allow itself to be killed by starvation at sea.

I also found that rule nonsense and asked about it years ago. The response was, "It is part of the official rules, do not question it, just accept it."

Still shaking my head over that one.

[jamo262]

the rule about retirement ino a city.

I use 1sp corps to slow down an army and retreat into a city before battle.

Is the game going to have a 5 to 1 over-run to counter act this?

[argaur]

Yes, i always hated this rule, how can a corp of 1000 men could stop an army of 200000, ......

[eg0master]

ORIGINAL: jamo262

the rule about retirement ino a city.

I use 1sp corps to slow down an army and retreat into a city before battle.

Is the game going to have a 5 to 1 over-run to counter act this?

NO please. Do not make EiA into another count the ratios game like 3rd reich!
It is a big difference how modern war and war of the 18th/19th century are quite different.

[jamo262]

No well a ratios game is not what I had in mind. Also with regard to corp on cities its a simple matter to change the rule that a corp must declare whether its inside or outside-if its outside they can fight, if the attacker so wishes, imediatley-one corp against one corp-and if he retreats inside just beseige the city. This change could work in field battles with 1 or 2 sp battles holding up large armies.
It would give a reason for a good secondary leader like Ney to act in the advance guard as well.

In fact upon reflection I realise now that this is not the rule that bugs me the most. Its the "an army cant reinforce if its already been in a battle" rule . Imagine two freindly armies side by side one gets attacked by a 1sp corp or cossack and becomes unavailable to reinforce the other.

What do you think of that one and how would you fix it?