Matrix Games Forums

Fair enough Reiryc but I'd contend that your solution reinforces my problems with the game rather than appease them.

Its not that the British land and march on an undefended paris. Its that a Corps of British can land in Brest in 1805, defeat 30, 000 Frenchmen waiting for them there and then march directly on Paris with no thought to requiring a seaport.... consistently. Its like the designers bought into all the hype of the British at Waterloo and made them a high quality army and then gave them that army in 1805.

If the solution to the fight against Austria sees hundreds of thousands of troops on both armies fighting decisive battles in Switzerland and the Tyrol, there is something fundamentally flawed with the design. Campaigning in the mountains was a way for a small force to totally frustrate a larger force and rarely produced decisive results. Napoleonic campaigns tended toward the lowlands for many reasons and this game doesn't reflect that.

Also, if the way to defeat an enemy force in France is to order all of my National Guard units to leave their fortresses and wait in the open while the main army fought an indecisive engagement, why was this tactic never adopted? No, provincial strongpoints are situated such that they do block access routes. As well, surrounding armies was simply not viable at the scale this game suggests. I should not need to order my Flanders garrison units into the field to cut off units fighting a few miles west of Paris. Even the entire Ulm encirclement campaign would, at this scale, exist entirely in the space of a single province. Army destruction has to be the rsult of local tactics rather than grand strategic.


EDIT: It should be noted that I am not saying this to bash CoG. I'm discussing it in the context of what may be the difference between EiA and CoG. EiA, as a boardgame, enforced fairly realistic results in my opinion.

Its not that the British land and march on an undefended paris. Its that a Corps of British can land in Brest in 1805, defeat 30, 000 Frenchmen waiting for them there and then march directly on Paris with no thought to requiring a seaport.... consistently.

Doesn't brest have a port in this game? I'm pretty certain it does and therefore this requirement is fulfilled, no?

However, the concept of supplies is an abstraction in this game. The game wasn't created with a serious treatment on supplies and supply routes. What does try to do is require that atleast some interest be paid to lines of communication but not in a detailed manner. I think it accomplishes this result.

If the solution to the fight against Austria sees hundreds of thousands of troops on both armies fighting decisive battles in Switzerland and the Tyrol, there is something fundamentally flawed with the design.

I guess we disagree here. My view is that these 'provinces' in the game represent very large tracts of land that include the flatter valleys and approaches to the mountains. I could see the switzerland province being an issue, but not so much that special code needed to be written for that province. Again, this is a matter of what constitutes acceptable abstraction for game purposes.

. Napoleonic campaigns tended toward the lowlands for many reasons and this game doesn't reflect that.

Was it designed to reflect that? Is it needed to reflect that given what the game is trying to portray? I would argue that it is beyond the scope and not necessary.

We can quibble over numerous rules in EiA, CoG, etc etc over whether or not they produce historical results and what we will come to learn at the end of such discussions is, that one person prefers this kind of historical abstraction and another person prefers another.

Also, if the way to defeat an enemy force in France is to order all of my National Guard units to leave their fortresses and wait in the open while the main army fought an indecisive engagement, why was this tactic never adopted?

I think you phrase the question incorrectly to produce your desired view. I would argue that what happens is that reinforcements are rushed to the front in an attempt to hit the rear of an army and cause disruption to his lines of communication and morale. Causing in the end his surrender.

Due to the game having large provinces, this is an abstraction. Did the battle happen along the 'border' of 2 provinces where this would work or did it happen in the middle of said province and thus wouldn't be likely? In this game we deal with the abstraction of quite large provinces.

As far as why wasn't it done historically? Probably because we are dealing with game counters, computerized sprites representing men, an artificial opponent and so on. Many will do a-historical moves with games because they aren't dealing with real human beings. I've taken low strength corps that had no business attempting a stand up fight against some of my opponents in eia due to their strength but still went forward with it anyways. Why? Because they weren't real men. There wasn't a real inhibitor such as dealing with men's lives.

As well, surrounding armies was simply not viable at the scale this game suggests. I should not need to order my Flanders garrison units into the field to cut off units fighting a few miles west of Paris. Even the entire Ulm encirclement campaign would, at this scale, exist entirely in the space of a single province. Army destruction has to be the rsult of local tactics rather than grand strategic.

This is an example of they type of discussion that produces the acceptable abstraction needed to reflect what happened historically.

EDIT: It should be noted that I am not saying this to bash CoG. I'm discussing it in the context of what may be the difference between EiA and CoG. EiA, as a boardgame, enforced fairly realistic results in my opinion.

It did cause some fairly realistic results to be sure. But believe me, I had things done to myself and did to others quite a few ahistorical situations in the game against my opponents where there were cries of 'that would never have happened! That's so un-historical!!' I still remember one guy arguing that there should have been loss rates on the march due to drop out from dysentry. While undoubtedly this did happen, is it really necessary that this must be included in eia? I would argue no, that this abstraction didn't need to be included and that even without it, the game still wasn't 'ahistorical' because they weren't included directly.

In the end, my point of view is that some people get so bogged down in certain details that they miss the forrest through the trees.

For myself, the whole point of playing and enjoying 'serious' wargames is to allow the players to try to solve problems that presented historical commanders, with the tools available to the hisotical commanders. Alot can be learned from this.

For example, when playing Campaigns on the Danube recently there was a Eureka moment when I realised that in fact the Ulm maneuver was NOT a strategic wheel maneuver as Chandler had described it and others had repeated ever since. It was fundamentally another example of the 'central reserve' doctrine that Napoleon favoured. When you get down to details and look at all the roads system, supply demands, and communications requirements, you see that the solution to destroying the Austrians at Ulm is not about doing some cool wheel but instead using simple tactical principles and this results in the appearance of a 'wheel' to a casual onlooker.

More generally though, the solution to wargame problems need to follow the principles of Sun Tzu.

I would argue that what happens is that reinforcements are rushed to the front in an attempt to hit the rear of an army and cause disruption to his lines of communication and morale. Causing in the end his surrender.

No general would ever have advocated sending militia units in piecemeal and unled to randomly and desperately attack organized enemy formations which you are advocating as a solution. It would not result in an enemy's surrender, but just the destruction of your manpower base. Maybe you are imagining something like the Bayern scenario but I assure you that this was done on a tactical level and the armies that forced the French surrender were not unled and random rabbles.

Every time I have to turn my mind to solutions such as this I am solving them as a gamer rather than as an armchair general. That may make for a great game but it makes for a horrible wargame. Chess, Axis and Allies, and Risk are not wargames, they are games. Empire in Arms is a wargame.

The best way to understand a good wargame is to understand war and history. When War and history are irrelevent to understanding a wargame then it is simply a bad wargame.

EDIT:

Napoleonic campaigns tended toward the lowlands for many reasons and this game doesn't reflect that.

Was it designed to reflect that? Is it needed to reflect that given what the game is trying to portray? I would argue that it is beyond the scope and not necessary.

Now you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. If the game doesn't encourage fighting in the lowlands then there is something else critical that is missing. Something is wrong with movement, supply, or perhaps defense calculations if we are seeing blatantly ahistorical tendencies. That the game rewards moving large armies through mountain passes is a symptom of some serious problems underlying the mechanics of the game. They problems are visible and obvious here but one wonders what other subtle issues they create elsewhere.

Chess, Axis and Allies, and Risk are not wargames, they are games. Empire in Arms is a wargame.

This is fundamentally where we disagree....

I find empire in arms to be no more or less of a wargame than the others you describe with the exception of chess. The difference is in the abstraction of the details. If we really want to get picky about the definition, all of those games, including chess fit under the definition of a wargame.

For myself, the whole point of playing and enjoying 'serious' wargames is to allow the players to try to solve problems that presented historical commanders, with the tools available to the hisotical commanders. Alot can be learned from this.

This all comes down to the level of abstraction one is seeking to deal with or in some combination.

No general would ever have advocated sending militia units in piecemeal and unled to randomly and desperately attack organized enemy formations which you are advocating as a solution.

This is precisely the kind of forrest through the trees type comment I refer to. Who said they are unled? Who said they are desperate? Who said the enemy was organized at this point? It very well could have been a co-ordinated attack along the 'border' of a province in which it was a hammer and anvil type fight of which the militia unit was but one part. It's an abstraction and rightfully so with provinces of this size in this game.

The best way to understand a good wargame is to understand war and history. When War and history are irrelevent to understanding a wargame then it is simply a bad wargame.

I find the best way to understand a good wargame is to understand the mechanics of the game. I've never found a wargame yet where anything more than a cursory knowledge of the history represented was required for good understanding--and even that was only to speed in learning how to play. When in college one of the guys in the wargaming club could care less about the history of the games we played... whether it was squad leader, diplomacy, eia, A3R or whatever we played, he had a great understanding of the mechanics of the games and was an excellent player.

Now you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. If the game doesn't encourage fighting in the lowlands then there is something else critical that is missing. Something is wrong with movement, supply, or perhaps defense calculations if we are seeing blatantly ahistorical tendencies. That the game rewards moving large armies through mountain passes is a symptom of some serious problems underlying the mechanics of the game. They problems are visible and obvious here but one wonders what other subtle issues they create elsewhere.

How do you know that these large provinces do not contain flatter terrain in them? No, I think the reality is that I am looking at the forrest through the trees because I do see the abstraction of the provinces in question and that they cover vast stretches of landmass that contain more than just one terrain type. Take a look at the game map and you'll see flat areas represented as part of the provinces that also contain part mountain ranges.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

Now you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. If the game doesn't encourage fighting in the lowlands then there is something else critical that is missing. Something is wrong with movement, supply, or perhaps defense calculations if we are seeing blatantly ahistorical tendencies. That the game rewards moving large armies through mountain passes is a symptom of some serious problems underlying the mechanics of the game. They problems are visible and obvious here but one wonders what other subtle issues they create elsewhere.

How do you know that these large provinces do not contain flatter terrain in them? No, I think the reality is that I am looking at the forrest through the trees because I do see the abstraction of the provinces in question and that they cover vast stretches of landmass that contain more than just one terrain type. Take a look at the game map and you'll see flat areas represented as part of the provinces that also contain part mountain ranges.

Then riddle me this: Why historically did the Austrians never try to mass a 150, 000 man army in the Tyrol and dare the French to attack them? Why were the 1805 and 1809 campaigns fought almost entirely in the Danube valley? Why were all the Italian campaigns fought in the northern plains and the only role of Tyrolia in any of these campaigns was to control the ability to shift troops from one theater to the other?

Even Suvarov's campaign only went into the mountains when he was trying to move to support the Rhineland.

Did Napoleon, Charles and Suvarov all just not get it? Were they horrible players who didn't understand the uses of mountains? Did they not see that they could just fight in the 'plains of Tyrolia' and ignore the mountains?

Switzerland has not been free from war these many years because it was neutral. It is free from war because it is near impregnable and is not even a good route to anywhere else. Mountains are things that armies avoid.

As to the argument that Tyrolia is not all mountainous, doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that the provincial borders on the game map are set as they are precisely because they are terrain based, rather than political or culturally based?

Its a moot point. In my opinion, you said it quite clearly that you are not a wargamer when you tried arguing that Risk is a wargame. Sure, if Risk is a wargame then CoG can be one too. I certainly hope though that EiA continues to push to be something alot better and to offer something more to the Grognards.

Then riddle me this: Why historically did the Austrians never try to mass a 150, 000 man army in the Tyrol and dare the French to attack them? Why were the 1805 and 1809 campaigns fought almost entirely in the Danube valley? Why were all the Italian campaigns fought in the northern plains and the only role of Tyrolia in any of these campaigns was to control the ability to shift troops from one theater to the other?

[8|]

Ok I give... you're right, the provinces only contain one type of terrain and aren't large land masses with a variety of terrain. And that the province in the game is of the exact same dimensions and contains the exact same geographical features of tyrol.

As to the argument that Tyrolia is not all mountainous, doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that the provincial borders on the game map are set as they are precisely because they are terrain based, rather than political or culturally based?

Uh no... take a look at the flanders province. Are you saying the area covered by the flanders province is all of one terrain? [&:]

Its a moot point. In my opinion, you said it quite clearly that you are not a wargamer when you tried arguing that Risk is a wargame. Sure, if Risk is a wargame then CoG can be one too. I certainly hope though that EiA continues to push to be something alot better and to offer something more to the Grognards.

Hahaha! Yes, how dare anyone say that risk could be a wargame! Clearly anyone doing so can't be a wargamer... they aren't worthy! [&o] Yes, I'm a wargamer but no, I'm not an elitest.

Not 'elitist'. Say instead 'specifist'.

There is gaming and there is wargaming. Both have their uses and their advantages.

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Not 'elitist'. Say instead 'specifist'.

There is gaming and there is wargaming. Both have their uses and their advantages.

I'm curious... what is your definition of wargame?

edit: Oh and specifist and elitist are not mutually exclusive....

Off the cuff general definition of a wargame:

A wargame is a game where the principles of warfare are consistently relevent. A wargame is more sim than 'game'.

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Off the cuff general definition of a wargame:

A wargame is a game where the principles of warfare are consistently relevent. A wargame is more sim than 'game'.

How did you come by this definition?

I also agree it's more sim than game, but what is being simulated can vary greatly.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I also agree...

It took almost 2 full pages, but you two FINALLY found something you agree on? [:'(]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I also agree...

It took almost 2 full pages, but you two FINALLY found something you agree on? [:'(]

I'm getting easier to get along with as I age I see... [:(]

Reiryc from Palomides?

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Reiryc from Palomides?

Yes... Didn't I ask you before if you played on palo?

Sorry, I must have been deeply absorbed constructing an inappropriate and offensive rant and missed seeing it.

Small world, heh.

^^ LOL - Alb/Galahad here.....

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

^^ LOL - Alb/Galahad here.....

boo albs! g-d lemmings! [:'(]

Although I haven't played in a couple years now so it might be different.

ORIGINAL: Reiryc



Nah... you're over-exagerating again.

No one said it doesn't have problems, but it is playable. It's nowhere near a bike without a seat and you know it. One can easily get through the game using quick battles, which aren't as fun as detailed battles, but fully functional without crashes and still fun in their own right.

This is much different than sitting on a bike with no seat and you know it. This is what I'm talking about. The over-exageration that over-blows the problems of the game.

Well, after a few tactical battle crashes and other random Plato errors that bike with no seat might be less painfull. Your right, the fact it annoys me that it crashes like this is really just me over exagerating.

Did you help write the code for this game or do you have shares in it? You seem to be defending it quite strongly.

Hopefully it will all be a moot point soon as it appears they are well on the way to resolving it in two ways. Firstly, by allowing tactical battles to be saved and secondly by fixing the problem itself.

I stand by my comments, the game was advertised with the tactical part as a important part of the game so if it does not work then I don't know how you can claim that the game is "playable" without some reservations. Well a bike without a seat is still rideable but it is not really what you would go out and buy now is it?

Now if I seem to be a whiner or exagerating then Matrix games have a very good customer in you. I have a few things lying about the house that don't quite work as well as I would want them to, do you want to buy them?

Also malcolm_mccallum had a point about the switzerland thing. I think it could have done with a few more penalties for movment supply to make it less inviting. It was not really a campaign theatre from 1805 onwards. There was a good reason for that.

Did you help write the code for this game or do you have shares in it? You seem to be defending it quite strongly.

No I just personally don't like it when people over-exagerate a problem. I have no problem speaking out against those kinds of 'problems'.

I stand by my comments, the game was advertised with the tactical part as a important part of the game so if it does not work then I don't know how you can claim that the game is "playable" without some reservations. Well a bike without a seat is still rideable but it is not really what you would go out and buy now is it?

Because the game still is playable. You can get through the game from start to end by using quick combat. I think it's more a bike with an uncomfortable seat as opposed to one with no seat. I tried riding a bike without a seat once... couldn't do it. My tush needed more cushion. [8D]

Now if I seem to be a whiner or exagerating then Matrix games have a very good customer in you. I have a few things lying about the house that don't quite work as well as I would want them to, do you want to buy them?

Depends... what are they?