Matrix Games Forums

I was looking at the EiH rules the other day and noticed that they did have this wintermovement rule.

In effect I think it doubled the terrain cost to enter a province during winter months. Or was that during mud and mountains were doubled during snow. In EiH the depot placement was counted as for the movement of corp so they have to be one space apart in mountains and mud.

On another note, has anyone out there played with any other alternate rules for EiAthat are not part of EiH? Sweden as a seventh power, different historical aspiration VP's or especially one I like the look of but never used- Monte Bohna's offering at the link below


http://users.telerama.com/~mbohna/Bellegarde.html

ORIGINAL: jamo262
.... especially one I like the look of but never used- Monte Bohna's offering at the link below
http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YNQ8Q1S3Pi ... 0Rules.doc

Jamo, I get a 404 at that link - can you check the URL?

If you are a member of "Empire in Arms Groups" at Yahoo the rules can be found in the files section-

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/empiresinarms/

Otherwise try this link and look under "My Empires in arms optional rules".

http://users.telerama.com/~mbohna/Bellegarde.html

Trouble is mate they are a very clicky crew, havent been able to get a game online at all , and Ive been a member for 2 years lol

The great thing about that group, is you can quickly learn how many inconsistencies there are in the manuals.

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Trouble is mate they are a very clicky crew, havent been able to get a game online at all , and Ive been a member for 2 years lol

I've been in 3 games, currently in a game since 2003.

Just post a desire to play and I'm sure you'll receive several replies.

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Trouble is mate they are a very clicky crew, havent been able to get a game online at all , and Ive been a member for 2 years lol

Never had that problem.... I was a member for awhile and in mass emails was offered to join in on several PBEM games, maybe it was just bad timing or something. Sorry to hear it.

I have always played with Economic Manipulation but never been really satisfied with it. It helps to keep powers high up on the PP track, but it does not help them to recover from a beating. I know that you can sacrifice PPs for extra money and manpower but you get such a trivial amount extra that I have never seen anyone use it for that.

If I am Britain I will trade in VPs for extra manpower about one out of every four games that I play. I will keep the manipulation stuck there, and about one third of everything left will be also subtracted because I will also subtract that from another player.

I have also noticed newer players tend to be conservative and want to shift towards the left while trying to stay out of battles, while many experienced players will tend to shift to the right and often plan to get bloody. When ever I hear people complain how it's unfair that rich nations can sit on +2 point ecc for the whole game, the first thing I think about is that player's inexperience.

I will do the +2 manipulation all game once in a while too. I don't like to play the exact same style every time, otherwise everyone else will know what to expect, and even set-up their forces ahead of time to put you at a disadvantage before the first battle.

Ship Building locations adds absolutely nothing except extra complications.

I am curious on what these extra complications are. Usualy when a new feature is introduced to EiA it causes more problems than it fixes, however so far I am a big favourite of ship building locations. It seems far more realistic than without, and that is a good thing, isnt it? If a player is foolish enough to build his fleets in a location that is highly vulnerable to the enemy, well then it is his fault if those ships become captured, isn't it? I think this adds more to the strategy, than it does to hurt it.

I have yet to see everything in this game happen, so perhaps there are a few issues I have over-looked.

When we played EIA face to face, we always played with leader casualties. Honestly, I only ever saw one leader killed...I believe it was poor old Bennigsen. War is hell, and leaders get killed.

Back in the days of EiH version 4, naval battles used chit selections as well. One option was meele which IIRC was very deadly and could do mad damage. The reason why the British player did not chose this one so much was due to the fact it gave high odds for Nelson to be killed. Sailors on ships who got involed in grape-shot battles didn't have a long life expectancy, for obvious reaons.

Thinking back now, wouldn't we have had a lot of risk-free fun if not having to worry about leader casualities in that situation.

If I may....

when I buy EiA I want to play EiA.

Just stick to the rules of the board game. They are good as they are.

In special: leader casualties
- in war humans die (like it or not)
- If there is no danger in using a general, you'd use it in every combat you can.
- If the general can die, you'll only use it in the most important fights.

Summary:
If the rule will be taken out all will go in favour of the French. If he can die the French will use him in really important fights which may be the end of the French if he loses. But you will not use him in rather small battles like conquering a province.
The option of a dying general is one more step to keeping the major powers at almost the same level.