Best way to play each power

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Much talk about what Russia should/can demand for its cooperation, but what about Spain? If I were Spain, I would insist on getting Portugal. What would be the reaction of most British players? If Britain refuses, could Spain ally with France and have France help Spain gain Portugal? How much trouble can Britain cause Spain by cutting off the Treasure Fleet? How easy is it for Britain to hold Portugal against a French/Spanish alliance?

impossible to hold portugal against fr/sp - but you can take it back again if FR attention wanders
possible but costly against just SP - but the pp.s are worth it (SP + castanos v. GB + wellington = pp.s for GB). But a decent FR player will immediately help SP beat you (by doing so he makes a friend, and one with a sizable fleet - a nice plum for FR).

Your best bet as GB to get portugal is to make a deal with him and keep him sweet. remember that Sp wants GB trade though, so you have a stick to go with whatever carrots you want to offer

GB has to be at war with SP to affect the treasure fleet (and GB will not DoW SP just for that, the SP fleets are too great a threat when combined with a still-intact FR fleet.

[sol_invictus]

Thanks for the comments. There is so much to consider for each power. I guess that is what makes the game such a fun classic. Time to re-read the rules in preparation for my first game. I must admit that the prospect is rather daunting. I feel like a lamb entering a lion's den.[X(]

[jamo262]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Thanks for the comments. There is so much to consider for each power. I guess that is what makes the game such a fun classic. Time to re-read the rules in preparation for my first game. I must admit that the prospect is rather daunting. I feel like a lamb entering a lion's den.[X(]

As a rule of thumb, stick to principle; the soundest one being-

CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES AND DRIVE THEM BEFORE YOU!!!

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: meyerg

Austria and Prussia strategy:

Ally with each other. Too many times I have seen France (sometimes me), convince Austria or Prussia to join the dark side. At the beginning of the game, France is at its weakest.

I have seen the Austria-Prussia alliance smashed when France surrender to one for generous peace terms and pounds the other. It is amazing how tough it is to be pounded by three French corps your buddy could have popped and not be bitter.

As for forming Poland, it is usually best to wait for some leaders so you have some chance of keeping Poland. Some of our Russian players are so greedy, form Poland as Prussia and you see the Russian player at war with you to "get Poland and keep it from France".

In the boardgame, one sues for peace. Period. One cannot sue for peace to one power but not another UNLESS one is not yet at war with the other. This is one reason becoming allies early can be important (because the ally can declare war on the aggressor, and so not be left out when the enemy sues).

Now, one ally could say "conditional" while the other says "unconditional". In that case, the one who said "unconditional" could be in trouble. For instance, if Austria and Prussia are both at war with France (along with GB -- but in the Grand Campaign board version, GB was REQUIRED to allow only unconditional peace against France), and France sues, Austria and Prussia had better have talked about what they would do. And, on top of that, they had better not backstab their ally. An unconditional is pretty harsh, and France would be a fool to take one just so he could stay at war with the other ally, except in certain end-cases. But, say Prussia said "conditional" after promising Austria he would say only "unconditional", Austria is going to be very angry. Prussia should expect later retaliation.

Another end case exists, however: If one major gets control of a minor that the other major has declared war upon. In such situations, the controlling major can go to war to defend the minor. In such a case, the ally of the other major is stuck until the next turn. People HAVE been known to be obliterated in a single month in some cases. We had that happen to Austria once: Declared war on Bavaria. France took control (Napoleon just happened to have the Grand Armee sitting two spaces away -- the decoy stack in the North had 5 corps, but only 5 troops as well). So, naturally, Nappy happily declared war, and had a single month in which to either annihilate the Austrian army or prepare for a two-front war. Nappy outpicked (using Outflank), and the rest is history. Austria was nearly obliterated in a single battle. Charles was spared capture by the three infantry left in the stack at the end of the battle. He had to sue for peace the next turn. Now, while Prussia COULD have declared war, it would have been stupid, as Austria could no longer help, and Russia was more interested in killing Turkey that game. So, Prussia stayed OUT, and Austria actually accepted an unconditional.

France did quite well that game. It almost happened true to history, except a lot earlier (this all happened in January of '05). The twelve months following that was not a pleasant time for Prussia. Prussia won the first major battle, but that only staved off the inevitable.

France actually did quite well for a long time in that game, primarily because of that decoy stack. The stack down by Bavaria only had four corps in it, so it looked weaker. Looks can indeed be deceiving. French corps are HUGE compared to other nations. We were all pretty much rookies in those days, so nobody realized how important these little details were.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

Add to that that except for the Janissaries, the Turks really have no staying power, and marching south should be relatively easy. Should that advance be accompanied by miserable luck with the die, the Russian hinterland is a great place to starve your enemy to death.
Those pesky Turks shouldn't be allowed to aggrandize too much, anyway;)

I wouldn't go quite that far. I once had Turkey lose every major battle in a war (six, as I recall) except one: The last one. Russia had to sue for peace after spending more than a year pounding Turkish troops into dust. The problem is that Turkey can fight almost indefinitely with barely a care in the world, because his victory point target is so low. So, Turkey just kept whittling away at the Russians, and waited. Until the end of the year, when they got all of their grunt troops back. It was then very ugly for the Russians, simply because the Turks had them so badly outnumbered. Austria had to threaten Turkey that, if Turkey didn't offer a conditional (and, a "light" one at that), Austria would join the Russians against them. Turkey glared at the Austrians, but agreed to the plan. But, then Turkey joined with France in the next war against Austria, and gained two of his dominant power conditions as a result (one of the Austrian provinces, and the Ottoman Empire).

Unfortunately, the world could not tolerate a dominant Turkey (think about it for a while!), so Turkey got rather picked on from that point on.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: fjbn

I don't understand you. If Russia is atacked in Corfu in january 1805 it means that GB prefers a Russia allied to France.That means that Prussia and Austria will be destroyed.

By the way, if GB atacks Russia in Corfú, risking an attack of harbour defences (OK, only 20, but they attack first) how many ships are blockading French Navy? and what about Spanish Navy?.

I think this is not a good strategy. You can attack Russia only after France has been defeated, not before.

Agreed.

In fact, Russia has a very good bargaining position AGAINST Great Britain. If I play Russia and the British don't allow me certain tender, tasty nuggets -- read "Sweden" in that comment --, I'm going to join FRANCE when an opportunity presents itself (say, when GB declares war on Sweden!)

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

In the boardgame, one sues for peace. Period. One cannot sue for peace to one power but not another UNLESS one is not yet at war with the other. This is one reason becoming allies early can be important (because the ally can declare war on the aggressor, and so not be left out when the enemy sues).

Now, one ally could say "conditional" while the other says "unconditional". In that case, the one who said "unconditional" could be in trouble. For instance, if Austria and Prussia are both at war with France (along with GB -- but in the Grand Campaign board version, GB was REQUIRED to allow only unconditional peace against France), and France sues, Austria and Prussia had better have talked about what they would do. And, on top of that, they had better not backstab their ally. An unconditional is pretty harsh, and France would be a fool to take one just so he could stay at war with the other ally, except in certain end-cases. But, say Prussia said "conditional" after promising Austria he would say only "unconditional", Austria is going to be very angry. Prussia should expect later retaliation.

Another end case exists, however: If one major gets control of a minor that the other major has declared war upon. In such situations, the controlling major can go to war to defend the minor. In such a case, the ally of the other major is stuck until the next turn. People HAVE been known to be obliterated in a single month in some cases. We had that happen to Austria once: Declared war on Bavaria. France took control (Napoleon just happened to have the Grand Armee sitting two spaces away -- the decoy stack in the North had 5 corps, but only 5 troops as well). So, naturally, Nappy happily declared war, and had a single month in which to either annihilate the Austrian army or prepare for a two-front war. Nappy outpicked (using Outflank), and the rest is history. Austria was nearly obliterated in a single battle. Charles was spared capture by the three infantry left in the stack at the end of the battle. He had to sue for peace the next turn. Now, while Prussia COULD have declared war, it would have been stupid, as Austria could no longer help, and Russia was more interested in killing Turkey that game. So, Prussia stayed OUT, and Austria actually accepted an unconditional.

France did quite well that game. It almost happened true to history, except a lot earlier (this all happened in January of '05). The twelve months following that was not a pleasant time for Prussia. Prussia won the first major battle, but that only staved off the inevitable.

France actually did quite well for a long time in that game, primarily because of that decoy stack. The stack down by Bavaria only had four corps in it, so it looked weaker. Looks can indeed be deceiving. French corps are HUGE compared to other nations. We were all pretty much rookies in those days, so nobody realized how important these little details were.

In the board game your corps sheets are public. How could anyone get fooled?

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

Then I guess we would fight. I dont allow other players to tell me what goals to seek.
If you want help against France, the price is dominance. Pure and simple.
Otherwise, your asking for altruism.

And w/o Russia, it will be very difficult to defeat France.
Especially if Russian troops are helping him.

But have it your way.

Turkey (the one natural Russian enemy) can essentially defeat Russia all by herself, provided someone is willing to bankroll the Turks. No, Turkey won't "win" the war the old-fashioned way. Turkey will fight a war of attrition that lasts either 2 or 3 years. The early game Russian army simply can't stand up to Turkey and GB together. The only way Russia can win is if France absolutely crushes Austria or Prussia, takes "access" as a victory condition, and marches the Grand Armee over to fight Turkey.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic
I didnt say I would attack Prussia or Austria. In fact I doubt it is needed.

Incorrect. In order for Russia to become dominant, she requires at least two Prussian and/or Austrian home nation territories, which can only be gained by war.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Murat


In the board game your corps sheets are public. How could anyone get fooled?

The NUMBER of corps is public. Not which ones or what's in them.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Joisey

But I have seen plenty of Austrian and Prussian players fail to set up their armies near one another.  In fact, I've seen the Austrians mass in the Tyrol for the terrain advantage (and the Tyrolian Korps) more often than I've seen them set up on the Prussian frontier.

Agreed. In our early games (after the first one), Austria and Prussia thought it would be a very good idea to set up next to each other, so they can link up when France declares war (in this game, "big stacks beat little stacks").

There's only one problem: France does NOT have to declare war. Then where are they? They're sitting on each others' borders, waiting for war while France gobbles up Germany. Then, they get the brilliant idea that maybe THEY need to start the war, so they declare war on FRANCE! What could be better for France, I ask? France collects half of Germany, and then somehow his opponents decide to walk into the jaws of death.

It gets worse: Austria and Prussia have now started a war with an opponent they very likely cannot defeat (politically). Without bold action, that is (or, so they think). So, they eventually get tired of watching France gobble up small fry, and they bring both of their armies together (usually, 12 corps, mostly full, under Charles) and attack Napoleon. For France, it just doesn't get any better than that.

I've seen this same tactic (putting the Austrian and Prussian armies next to each other) used several times, usually played by people who are "too smart" to get caught with the Austrian and Prussian armies separated. They get crushed every time (in VP, that is) and can't figure out why:

France may be militarily weak at the beginning of the game, but they can still win most battles politically, while losing more troops (on average). But, the game is not won or lost on the field of battle. It is won or lost on the Political chart. I've seen at least two games where France surrendered in every major war, and yet claimed victory at the end of the game.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Yes, if I am AU/PR and BR wants to pay RU and it does not affect me, thats fine.
But, as BR you have to be careful who you give money to. As BR I would have a hard time giving money to RU since financially, they are in pretty good shape. PR on the other hand is not and you don't want them going to the dark side or allow FR to set up the two to three year cycle of defeat in detail for AU/PR that Yamma talked about. Now if RU is in a pickle and needs help then GB should help, especially if it is a pickle concerning the FR.

How do you keep a crab in a bucket? Put two other crabs in with the first. The two on the bottom will keep pulling the one on top down. This game seems to work in simular fashion. He who has the most PP needs to be jumped on by the others.

Not really. Because the game is well-balanced, a power has to REALLY stomp people before he becomes that much of a target.

The problem could appear bigger, though, if people are counting raw victory points. In this case, it depends on whether people are looking at "how many VP has so-and-so gained?" or "how many VP does so-and-so need for victory?" In either case, an unrealistic picture of "who is winning?" is given. The former tends to list France as the winning nation. The latter tends to look like France is losing (most points yet to gain).

The only good way of looking at "victory points" is as a percentage of the total needed. That normalizes everybody's current count, and gives the only true reading of the current "winning nation". In situations where this is done, the amount players are separated by is typically a very small number. It's usually not even possible to predict a winner (although, predicting a loser is more common).

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ps. It has been my experience that TU has to take risks that I normally would not take with any other power because their army does not have the moral to pull off an attack like probe or eschelon. They have to break their enemy fast or they are screwed!

I look at Turkey differently: Turkey is ALREADY screwed at the beginning of the game! They have pretty much the worst of anybody, with the possible exception of Prussia.

But, that huge "disadvantage" comes with some very big ADvantages. For instance, Turkey can fight a whole war caring absolutely nothing about troop losses. France has to concern herself with whether to build artillery or not for the free kills. Well, Turkey's army is going to do LOTS of "free kills", with no real budgetting involved. Yes, he's going to lose the battles, but who cares? If I recall correctly, Turkey can win the game with plain average Political status through the whole game. There are occasions when Turkey will gain some (after making some carefully-timed alliances, for example). In wars, he will lose. But, he is going to DECIMATE his opponents army.

Heck, even if he never fires a shot, he's going to be costly to attack, simply because of all the territory an enemy has to take just to get him to the bargaining table. Those depots cost a lot to maintain, and the supply costs even more. Plus, the enemy has to leave a small army guarding each of them towards the end of the year, or else some Turkish corps might just show up behind the enemy's ranks.

Turkey is the one power for whom a "devil may care" attitude actually reaps benefits.

Plus, every once in a while, Turkey will actually WIN a battle. When that happens, it is devastating to the opponent, because, by definition, Turkey didn't take much morale damage. The biggest one I ever saw was clearly lucky dice, but the opponents (Britain, Russia, and Austria) took a combined 80+ troop losses, including most of Russia's guard and artillery. The worst part was that Turkey was allied with the French, and thus moving last. So, after evaporating 2/3 of the enemies' troops, Turkey was poised to pull a "move last, then first again" maneuver on the allies. The allies negotiated a "mild" unconditional surrender prior to Turkey's land movement. Turkey agreed to take "only" the milder version of territories from Russia. Britian didn't accept the terms, but Turkey was hardly afraid of GB any more, even after agreeing to let Wellington leave as part of the "mild" unconditional terms to the other two nations.

The icing on the cake was that this was Turkey's one and only battle in that war. He had just allowed the three powers to walk, basically unfettered, through his territory. His intent was to leave Constantinople garrisoned, and have the army sitting outside, to fight one glorious-in-defeat battle. Then, take his lumps and wait until the enemies actually broke into Constantinople and won the battle. It was a dream come true to actually win the battle outside the gates, and frosting on the cake to get a HUGE cav pursuit.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

My mistake[:)]

Then stack the AU in Theresienstadt in Jan then first move into Dresden to join the PR. In march they move to Hanover then to Amsterdam.

How would the FR counter this?

Attack for Vienna. Make the allies come to him.

NOTE: This only works if there is a path through the minor powers that France can trace supply through. VERY early in the game, it won't work. But, after 6-10 months, it becomes trivial. Once in Vienna, the French can forage, but they have to move to get there, and that requires supply $.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Much talk about what Russia should/can demand for its cooperation, but what about Spain? If I were Spain, I would insist on getting Portugal. What would be the reaction of most British players? If Britain refuses, could Spain ally with France and have France help Spain gain Portugal? How much trouble can Britain cause Spain by cutting off the Treasure Fleet? How easy is it for Britain to hold Portugal against a French/Spanish alliance?

I agree. In fact, I don't even promise to be friends with GB. Just that I will not actively join the French for a year. GB will have to negotiate for any extra time. Spain makes a wonderful neutral. At least at the start of the game.