CleverDevils2 AAR

[Jimmer]

For Britain, well, it gets weirder and weirder:
 
Remember the game was delayed for a month or two because I couldn't attack Ottoman boys in Africa. Well, that seems fixed, but now I can't attack Turks in Turkey. I have a Swedish corp that came all the way around the map just for this, and now it doesn't work. It figures.
 
But, it didn't technically delay the game (yet). I just couldn't besiege a corps stuck in a city (and already being besieged by the Austrians). It's possible the reason is because the Austrians are already there. If so, then when I loan it to him, he'll be able to put it into besieging position. We'll see.
 
(As you can see, I'm not reporting the somewhat predictable actual battles. I think reporting the game snafus is more interesting at this point. )

[gwheelock]

Ok; here are some of the hightlights from May, 1807

Russia makes unsuccessful breakin attempt in Anapa (garrison subsequently
dies due to forage)
Russian cossack destroys French depot in Theresenstadt



Khan & 6 corp attack 1 Austrian corp (no leader) in Nicopolis.
Chits are Echelon vs (unsuccessful) Withdraw
Casulties 1 Austrian M; Turkey wins.
Turkey makes unsuccessful breakin attempt in Philippopolis


Prussia creates 1 corp during reinforcement & attempts to assault Berlin
Breakin is unsuccessful.


Massena & 1 corp attack 1 Prussian corp (no leader) in Berlin
Chits are E. Assault vs Defend
Casulties 2 Prussian Cav

[gwheelock]

France make unsusccful breakin attempts in Thorn & Konigsberg
1 French corp (no leader) makes successful breakin in Glogau

[gwheelock]

Saxon corp (no leader) attacks Russian cossack in Theresenstadt
(cossack fails withdraw)
Casulties : 1 Russian Cossack

[gwheelock]

Napoleon & 5 corp attack 1 Russian corp (no leader) in Brest-Litovsk
Casulties : 1 Russian I

[NeverMan]

Notice how the last battle SHOULD be trivial combat (no PP and set tables). Sadly, this game blows so hard that Trivial Combat hasn't even been implemented.... YET, after almost a year!!

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Notice how the last battle SHOULD be trivial combat (no PP and set tables). Sadly, this game blows so hard that Trivial Combat hasn't even been implemented.... YET, after almost a year!!

What are you talking about? The combat vs the cossack WAS a trivial combat.
Both sides were on the 5-2 table as per the rules (modified to the 4-2 on my side
due to mountains - which ARE included in the Trivial combat mods)

The combat in Brest-Litovsk was corp(s) vs corp & resolving THOSE as trivial
combats are optional in the original EIA rules & even in that case PPs are still
gained/lost :

[font="Courier New"]EIA Rule 7.5.3.5: No political points are gained or lost in trivial combats.
EXCEPTION: If both commanders had agreed to resolve what could have been
a field or limited field combat by using trivial combat procedures, the normal
political point changes are made (see 7.5.2.10.1.3)[/font]

The game IS doing it right in counting the PPs. Doing field or limited field combats
as trivials required BOTH sides to agree. In EIANW; that would have required something
akin to either a battle file exchange of another preset option on the corp's
"chit selection" table

[NeverMan]

Maybe I am used to playing the 5:1 automatic trivial combat. I will try to find this rule somewhere. I see where people talk about it on the web and using screening corps. I'll post again when I find the rule.

EDIT: You are correct, it's an optional rule. I guess we just always played with this one since it's such a good rule. Either way EiANW doesn't implement this in ANY FASHION (optional or otherwise).

12.3.10 OVERWHELMING NUMBERS: Field or limited field combats where one side has a 5:1 or better ratio in strength factors _must_ be resolved using trivial combat. EXCEPTION: An outnumbered _defender_ may attempt to withdraw before the trivial combat by rolling the commander's strategic rating or less.

Since TC is forced (non-voluntary) there is NO PP exchange per the rule you cited.

It's a good thing this great rule was left out and things like "privateers" made it in this game.

[Jimmer]

I don't think this is the place for discussions on the value of the game as a whole.
 
Now, if you want to discuss that idiot British player not sending enough money to his allies ...
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I don't think this is the place for discussions on the value of the game as a whole.

Now, if you want to discuss that idiot British player not sending enough money to his allies ...

I don't see why not since the lack of an OBVIOUS optional rule has directly effected the game, apparently due to my misunderstanding/stupidity of the rules. Like I said we used to always play with this rule so I forgot it was optional (really shouldn't be though).

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Maybe I am used to playing the 5:1 automatic trivial combat. I will try to find this rule somewhere. I see where people talk about it on the web and using screening corps. I'll post again when I find the rule.

EDIT: You are correct, it's an optional rule. I guess we just always played with this one since it's such a good rule. Either way EiANW doesn't implement this in ANY FASHION (optional or otherwise).

12.3.10 OVERWHELMING NUMBERS: Field or limited field combats where one side has a 5:1 or better ratio in strength factors _must_ be resolved using trivial combat. EXCEPTION: An outnumbered _defender_ may attempt to withdraw before the trivial combat by rolling the commander's strategic rating or less.

Since TC is forced (non-voluntary) there is NO PP exchange per the rule you cited.

It's a good thing this great rule was left out and things like "privateers" made it in this game.

12.3.>10<? My EIA rulebook only goes up to 12.3.8 in that section.

(& what is 12.3.9? Do you happen to have a link to an online copy with that
section in it? I'd like to see whatelse I'm missing)

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock
12.3.>10<? My EIA rulebook only goes up to 12.3.8 in that section.

(& what is 12.3.9? Do you happen to have a link to an online copy with that
section in it? I'd like to see whatelse I'm missing)

It was a rule added in one of the errata. See this page: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/errata.html

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock
(& what is 12.3.9? Do you happen to have a link to an online copy with that
section in it? I'd like to see whatelse I'm missing)

Your wish is my command (unless you ask me to hold up the targetting rings for one of your fireballs):

http://eia.xnetz.com/

This page has the original rules, the errata (combined), and the original rules with the errata added. A very worthy resource.

[gwheelock]

June 1807
Well; we just had a big battle in Brest-Litovsk

Kutuzov & 8 corp attacked Napoleon w/5 corp in B-L
Chits were Echelon vs (defensive) Outflank
Russia commits guard on 3rd round to prevent French persuit
Casulties were 61 Russian I, 1 Russian C, 2 Russian G (on guard commit);
13 French I

(Note - there appears to be a minor bug on the 2nd & 3rd rounds
of combat - the French cav superiority bonus is being credited to
the Russians - the mods to the Russian rolls where "(1)" prior to
losing the "break" cav - this is why the Russian round 3 roll is a
modified 7. This would not have affected either the result or the
casulty levels in this case.)

[Jimmer]

Looks like you were very lucky Napoleon made his first outflank roll. You didn't have enough covering infantry, and would have had to remove a dozen guard (or more), if you had rolled a 6 for that roll. Gambles look good when they succeed, I suppose.
&nbsp;
Regarding the roll of a 7, note that it is a 7 WITHOUT a +1. So, the bug isn't in the cavalry bonus, but in the die rolls themselves. Better save a copy of this one for the bug report.

[gwheelock]

Not luck. I started with 20. I lost 8; that leaves 12. If Nappy had missed
his outflank; Russia would have been on the 3-1. The best he could get on that
table would have been 15% which times his 80 would = ... 12.

I only had to worry about the 2nd round ... Nappy cant miss on the 3rd.
& this is the COMPLETE worst case from my side - 1 in 6 of missing
the outflank times 1 in 6 of his maxing the 1st round roll times 1 in 6
of his maxing the 2nd round roll = 1 in 216. I'll take my chances at
that.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Looks like you were very lucky Napoleon made his first outflank roll. You didn't have enough covering infantry, and would have had to remove a dozen guard (or more), if you had rolled a 6 for that roll. Gambles look good when they succeed, I suppose.

Regarding the roll of a 7, note that it is a 7 WITHOUT a +1. So, the bug isn't in the cavalry bonus, but in the die rolls themselves. Better save a copy of this one for the bug report.

Here is why I said that the program credited my reinforcing cav bonus to
the Russians. This is the result just PRIOR to the Russians taking their
cav loss (which probably resulted in the values being recomputed).

(You CANT ROLL a "7" without the +1)

[Jimmer]

OK, I was wrong (about losing too many). Thanks for the correction.
&nbsp;
Regarding the cav bonus, it looks like you are correct. Fortunately, it didn't matter in this case, but it COULD matter a lot.

[NeverMan]

Why do your two images have different modifiers?

The first is (0) and the second appears to be (1).

[Jimmer]

Because there are at least two bugs, it would seem. Note that the first image shows a 7(0), which is clearly impossible. So, the first bug granted Russia cavalry superiority (in just the 2nd and 3rd rounds, though). The second bug is a display bug regarding the 0 or 1 value inside parentheses.
&nbsp;
Fortunately, in this particular battle, it didn't matter.

[Jimmer]

By the way, Gwheelock, cavalry factors in an outflanking force that has arrived are not doubled for purposes of cavalry superiority. So, the effective cavalry ratio should have been 15 to 5. Still you should have had cav superiority, but not at a count of&nbsp;24 to 5.
&nbsp;
Out of curiosity, what happened to the cossack? It should have been in the second image you posted. Unless Russia took the cossack as a lost factor prior to the 3rd round?
&nbsp;
Maybe a third bug?