Matrix Games Forums

I am very happy to know that TMR will be added. This whole thread could have been avoided if Maitrx had communicated this earlier seeing as how it was on the "to-do" list.
Unfortunately for me, I am still not sure about this game. There have just been too many odd changes to the real rules for me to jump on it blindly. I will wait and see.

I understand it is hard being a small company on such a large project, but you picked it, not me. Now it's your responsibility. Good Luck.

It's easy to bash the developers, but please remember it's a really though job to bring such a wonderful boardgame to the PC.
I am very grateful to the group of people that started this project

Unfortunately for me, I am still not sure about this game. There have just been too many odd changes to the real rules for me to jump on it blindly

To be fair I have to say that the EIA rules are far away from being perfect- and even the official AH errata left lots of questions unanswered. So a change of rules could mean a clarification, that can be very usefull. At some points it is hardly impossible to keep the game close to the original rules, cause there is so much room for interpretation what the original rule is about... well, TMR does not belong to the rule-problems. [;)]

Problem is the conversion to a new medium (boardgame to Computer) neccessitates changes to the game known as EiA.

An exact match to the board game will NOT be accomplished, and without a doubt pi$$ some of the purists off. (see first part of thread)

But by trying to mirror it too much, there is a distinct possibility that we get a "half-birth" game design that fails in all accounts (per Pasternakski).

I certainly hope that the effort to ensure a competent design that plays well and represents the period is first and foremost in the design and testing process, and not kissing some whining purst's a$$.

and not kissing some whining purst's a$$

Denisonh, did you every play EIA ?
Without the Tactical Maximum Rating, one major point in leadership would be ignored- the ability (or lack of it) to handle a large army. Because then all leaders would be able to lead the largest possible army without difference. GB for example got some great leaders for its fine army like More and Wellington. But this fine army was also always a small one, so the british generals did not get the experience to command a large army. This is very god simulated in the game by the TMR. And as I wrote, the whole land combat system is based on the corps system.
You asked for

competent design that plays well and represents the period

I hope you realise that the period can not be represented if you ignore the fact that some leaders where brilliant in commanding an army with several corps, while other leaders such as Ney indeed had problems with more than one corps.

kissing some whining purst's a$$.

is not a very smart remark in that context. Better think about it.

Yes I have EiA.

Yes, I agree that the TMR is important.

I agree 100% with the case laid out. That is a much more convincing case than "it is in EiA, so it should be in computer EiA".

THAT is my issue. This is an EiA LIKE game (naval interception WILL NOT BE THE SAME, kinda important to an Anlgophile like me), not EiA (as that is a boardgame).

I would like to see conversation focused on improving the game model for the computer adaptation so it is complete, can stand on it;s own, and is playable by email. The "THIS IS NOT EiA, SO I AM TAKING MY TOYS AND GOING HOME" attitude is riubbish that in no way will help make this a better game.

whether or not rule 15.1.1.A is included is only important if it contributed to improving the COMPUTER version of the game in modeling the strategic and diplomatic aspects of the period.

In the context of laying out a good case, you are right, but there are some contributors here whose whining is overly loud, not based on making a better game, and frankly irritating.

THAT is what generated the inflammatory remark.

ORIGINAL: StCyr

and not kissing some whining purst's a$$

Denisonh, did you every play EIA ?
Without the Tactical Maximum Rating, one major point in leadership would be ignored- the ability (or lack of it) to handle a large army. Because then all leaders would be able to lead the largest possible army without difference. GB for example got some great leaders for its fine army like More and Wellington. But this fine army was also always a small one, so the british generals did not get the experience to command a large army. This is very god simulated in the game by the TMR. And as I wrote, the whole land combat system is based on the corps system.
You asked for

competent design that plays well and represents the period

I hope you realise that the period can not be represented if you ignore the fact that some leaders where brilliant in commanding an army with several corps, while other leaders such as Ney indeed had problems with more than one corps.

kissing some whining purst's a$$.

is not a very smart remark in that context. Better think about it.

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

Wow. This thread is a huge grown man pissing contest.

Go get laid or something, video games aren't all there is in the world.

Boy has he got that wrong, of course video games are all there is in the world Duh! [:D]
having fun here as well lol [:D]

I think people need to calm down. I will agree that missing the TMR was A BIG OVERSIGHT and that someone should have caught that by now. However I think getting all mad and yelling "I'm not going to buy the game now" is a mistake. Matrix is the only company willing to convert EiA into a computer, something I have been waiting for for a long time. I don't expect computer EiA to be perfect (as I see it). I expect there will be things that will need to be changed after it is released. But I think this project is important enough and David, Marshall and the boys at Matrix have been responsive enough to us that I am willing to see the project through.

Just to reiterate, we've always been aiming for EiA + some EiH. The changes from that goal have been very few and far between.

Regards,

- Erik

Wow. This thread is a huge grown man pissing contest.

Go get laid or something, video games aren't all there is in the world.

oh yeah because family and career are SOOO much more rewarding than outflanking Nappy with the Turks ;p

Just to reiterate, we've always been aiming for EiA + some EiH. The changes from that goal have been very few and far between.

don't know exactly what you mean but again and again all change could have bigger concequence. before to made a change perhaps it would be better to talk about it.

last thing, if your version is not very close to the boardgame it would be better to change the name. at least by respect

Greyshaft, I am sorry to disagree with you about beeing easy to implement the TMR.

The main problem under my point of view will be to implement the new stacks limits, since for each leader in the area will be a different limit and of course, depending in the seniority of the leaders, if there are more than one..etc, etc...

It will be a bit more complicated but I MG had made a great job and will be no problem!!

Regards.

2gaulle, the game is like the original,but some features had been added, by now, from EiH, so dont worry about it.

And some more will be added in future upgrades.

The game is going to be great!

I agree TOTALY the maximum tactical rating IS the heart of finesse of the EIA system. Without it it would be a slog of a game with nothing but who can walk around with 10 corp armies!!!!!

It's not just that it's the "finesse" of EiA, but it makes all the difference in PP. For instance, GB has Wellington, which is great and all, but his 3 TMR has limits, while Nap has a TMR of 6, which is just superior to everyone, and the PP (hence the VP) is adjusted accordingly.

Well, back in the old old days with EiA was new a big part of the fun was making those big monster stacks and beating up the closest guy to you. That was the whole climax of the game. Eventually when the communities shifted to sticking with TMR rules things became a bit (watered down?).

Monsters stacks were fun but I do not think they were that much of a game breaker. Sure you can put everything all in one pile and march it off but what are you going to do with everyone running into the back of your opened territories? I know, double that stack back as fast as you can.

Even fans of the Monster Stack play had to keep counters back, assuming they want decent chances to win.

Anyway, I don't mind the TMR ratings and the rest of it, but some could argue it takes part of the fun out of the game.

I dug up some reference from the old eia FAQ that seems dead on topic:

3.1 Monster Stacks

One tactic tried by many players is the use of "monster stacks." These
are stacks of as many corps as you can put together. The theory is that
the loss of leader tactical rating doesn't hurt that much, and you will
inflict terrible losses on the enemy, even if you lose the battle. After
one or two battles with such a stack, the enemy will have few troops left
with which to defend.

Many players feel that this tactic can be overcome by attacking the
nation with the monster stack where it is lightly defended. They reason
that, if the majority of the army is concentrated in one stack, many
provincial and minor country capitals are left undefended. By capturing
those capitals, you can force the monster stack to disperse to defend
holdings.

Other players feel that the monster stack is ahistorical and detracts
so much from the game that they have written house rules to prevent it.
Some are given below:

3.1.1 Peter Lodewyckx peter-L@tornado.be

We have the following house rule:
1. Stacking in an area (regardless if combat occurs or not) is strictly
limited to
a. Corps with leader: 2 times maximal corps rating -1WITH a minimum of 2.
This means a leader can never have more than a -1 on his tactical rating
(unless reinforced, see below). Example: Nappie (5.5.6) can command 6 corps
(5.5.6) or 6 to 11 corps (5.4.6). There cannot be more than 11 corps in the
area with Napoleon. Even Jerome (2.2.1) can command 2 corps.
b. Corps without a leader: All corps can stack with ONE other corps. Being
stacked does affect their Tactical Rating by -1. So it becomes _1_ for FR,
GB, and
late PR corps and _0_ for all other.
2. This can only be violated due to reinforcement in combat. If a successful
reinforcement occurs the commanding generals tactical rating can go
(further) down due to excess corps. Example: Nappie (10 corps) is reinforced
by Jerome (2 corps) then Nappie (in charge being A-class) goes from (5.4.6) to
(5.3.6) after the reinforcement.
3. If after combat there is an excess number of corps present in an area
(due to successful reinforcements) the OWNING player must retreat the
appropriate number of corps according to the normal retreat rules (to supply
source etc...).

We have playtested this is a grand campaign game (we are currently in 1813)
and it works just fine:
1. You get more "historical" feeling (no I will not re-start the discussion
of Simulation versus Game ): Marching Your stacks apart and concentrating
on the enemy.
2. You use all Your leaders (not just Davout and Napoleon, even the Grand
Vizir and Alexander become interesting with their high maximal ratings)
3. No "Free forage" with the entire French army in an area that hardly can
accommodate that many soldiers, let alone feed them !

3.1.2 David S Ammerman xportr@ix.netcom.com

1) The maximum # of corps allowed in an area (without penalty-see below)
is determined by totaling the corps capacity of the TWO highest corp
capacity leaders in the area.
EXAMPLES: Napoleon, Soult, and Jerome are in an area. Total corps
capacity would be 6 (Nappy) + 3 (Soult) for a total of 9 corps.
Charles and Kutuzov are stacked with an allied army. 6 (Charles) + 4
(Kutuzov = 10 corps capacity.
2) ONE cavalry corps may always freely stack with other corps at NO
penalty.
2a) A cavalry leader allows a # of CAV corps equal to his tactical
rating, to stack freely with a stack. This is in addition to all other
considerations.
3a) Corps with 10 or less factor capacity count as 1/2 corps for stacking
limits purposes (example: Russian 4th inf corps, Bosnian Feudal infantry
corps).
3b) Corps with 21 or greater capacity count as 1+ 1/2 corps for stacking
limits purposes (example: French Guard corps, Prussian I corps).
3c) Cossacks, Guerrillas and Freicorps may always freely stack with corps
at no penalty.
4)Leadership ratings apply. The highest rated leaders in the area must be
used for counting corps capacity totals ( we use a special rule which
says that Bleucher is promoted to a "B" leader in 1807).
5) Reinforcement: Reinforcing a battle may exceed the corps capacity
total for an army. When this happens, a "-1" is applied PER CORPS (1/2
corps count as 1 if reinforcing alone) against the tactical rating of the
commander in charge of the battle. Thus if Charles and 6 corps capacity
are in an area and reinforced by 2 additional corps capacity, Charles'
tactical rating drops from 4 to 2. If Charles were further reinforced the
next round with 3 additional corps capacity, Charles' tactical rating
would be "0". Once the leading commanders' tactical rating reaches "0",
no further reinforcement may take place. If, as a result of
reinforcement, more corps are in the area than allowed, the over-stacked
corps must retreat IMMEDIATELY to the area they reinforced from.
5a) Exception: If the reinforcing force introduces a new commander that
can be counted for maximum corp capacity purposes, the total # of corps
allowed is recalculated immediately.
Example: Pechlivan Khan and Kushanz Ali are in an area with a total of 6
corps capacity. They are reinforced by the Grand Vizier with 1 corps
capacity. Since the Grand Vizier outranks the others, his corps capacity
must be used to calculate the total allowed. While this increases the
maximum total to 7 corps (and thus no penalty), The Grand Vizier takes
command!(Yuck)
Thus, leaders used for reinforcing must be used carefully, lest they
affect the maximum possible corps and/or take charge of the battle.

Still another tactic, which requires some luck, is to form a large army
(tempting to the monster stack) under a leader with a high strategic
rating. Withdraw each time the monster stack attacks. Eventually, the
monster stack will choose escalated assault to get the -1 DRM to your
withdrawal roll. If you time it right, you can outflank or defend,
probably inflicting severe losses.

If optional rule 12.3.1 Supply Limit Per Depot is used, at least the supply of
the monster stack will be made more expensive.

ORIGINAL: Pippin
[ZAP]
If optional rule 12.3.1 Supply Limit Per Depot is used, at least the supply of
the monster stack will be made more expensive.

About that, could any gentle playtester refresh us if this optional rule is included in CEiA?

We've always used the 4 corps/depot limit and never really had issues with monster stacks. They just aren't practical on most theaters given their inconveniences (don't protect much territory, vulnerability of supply lines, easy to cut off with phantom corps).

My experience with EiA has been that monster stacks are the last resort of the incompetent.