Matrix Games Forums

In any game like this (COG included), if you want historical rivals to act as such then you can artificially hard code a "must be at war" rule or you can make the scoring system such that it incents the player controlling that nation to oppose its rival. The more Napoleonic France gains in power, influence and prestige the more Britain should lose. Most games don't offer both sides of the coin, they only offer the incentive of your rival gaining power, not a correlation between their points gained and yours lost.

The rule that about France and GB at war is not a big deal. Anyone setting up a game can just insist that they declare war at the start if this is vital for some people.

Otherwise, don't see the problem.

I just want to play the game first then I will begin to think about what should be in and so on........

well, isn´t it funny ? "The game is done when it´s done", how often could we read this ?
And how often was the reaction " [&o]it´s ok, just take the time you need, we just want the game as good as possible [&o]" ?
And what do we get now ?

Ok, it is not funny, sorry.

ORIGINAL: Daniel Jax
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses

Well if not proportional how ARE losses apportioned? If decided by the players then a gentleman’s agreement can put this one in place anyway. If randomly assigned then it will work out close enough anyway. In either case not a game breaker.

The player decides (within some rules constraiunts, like not taking militia once morale damage exceeds 2). Every battle is by definition between only two players - a player fights with his own forces and any allied forces that are on loan to him in that turn. I am not sure if allied units in the same area help defend if not on loan - I will test for it.

ORIGINAL: JRichert
Retreats conducted by AI - This seems strange, couldn't a text window be opened to ask the player which way he would like to retreat?

The combined movement option is not a good solution. One of the perils of combined movement was movement order. If you used combined movement, you might move after your opponent. This way, that could be circumvented by giving the corps on loan to the player that moves first in the order.

a) Having PBEM means having to make some compromises to cut down on tooing and froing. I suppose the issue is that what retreat options are open to you can be effected by the order in which the attacker chooses to resolve the battles.

b) You are right about the ramification - allies "straddling" their opponent could move in the second allies turn one month and the first allies turn the second month, getting a flipflop (the traditional French two-moves in a row). But what's a better alternative that can work *simply* in PBEM?

ORIGINAL: marc420
When you talk about v1, does this mean some of these might be added later in a patch? Or is this going to be the usual idea of making everyone pay full price for another game to eventually see these features?

Maybe I've been burned too many times, but I'm getting tired of paying full price for a game missing features, then being told I have to pay full price a second time to get those features.[:-]

I like the idea of a EiA game, but I'm learning the smart move is to completely ignore the first and maybe the second release of a game system and wait for the full game to eventually be developed.[>:]

Marc, I am a tester, not the design company, so I can't make you promises.

However, many Matrix Games involve significant new features through the patch process (ie. for free) before a really major change makes it a new version (it. that you have to pay for). This is one of the reasons I am helping Matrix - beta testing continues after the product goes live, now testing the patches etc as the product continues to grow and mature.

In COG, for example, I am currently testing the second patch, which changes some game dynamics significantly as well as adding about a dozen minor features, and fixing quite a few bugs. One of the changes is something I had thought would have to wait for a new version because of the work involved - but the devs felt it important enough to put in the effort. [revamping waste to work at the province level]

It would be my expectation that EIANW will continue to add features through patches - part of the reason for this thread is gaining advice from the player community about the relative importance of different features, so they do as many of the more important ones as possible sooner rather than later. That said, you are right that there might be particular features you would be asked to pay for in an expansion pack or new version. I suppose if you are happy to wait until a product is a few years old, you can wait it out. I am the opposite: I like trying to play with a beta (or even alpha) product!

Here are my thoughts

Rules not implemented
1. Forced march

Not a major deal as players rarely force march. But why not in original release? [&:]

2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)

I can live with this. I think I might prefer it to the current boardgame rule.[:)]

3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

I am not a big fan of this rule as it leads to abuse. Invasions can be stopped by a 1 ship fleet. A single 1 ship fleet can intercept a larger fleet carrying several corps. If the invasion fleet wins it still has to stop its movement. And what happens to the corps if the invaders win a battle in a SZ that doesn't touch land?!?!? This seem to be a big mistake.

4. Besieged port city supply

Another big mistake. Gibralter and Istanbul are now more vulnerable. And I don't see the reason for this rule omission.

5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)

Not a big mistake but I don't see thee reason for the rule omission. Just change some of the rules governing it to make it more playable. I can live with out it.[&:]

6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

Hurts France and I don't see the reason for this either. What the problem with letting minor assualt cities?[&:]

7. British change to VPs

Bad for anglophiles[&:]

8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]

oh well.

9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)

expected

10. Scuttling of ships

Not big but why not in original release?[&:]

11. Demobilizing

Not big but why not in original release?[&:]

12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

could lead to abuse.[:@]

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion

Good for Prussia bad for everyone else. I can live with this one.

14. Large fleets

Major help bonus to Naval powers. I really like limited movement for large fleets

15. Limited supply

Monster stacks will rule[:@]

16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]

Bad for France, and they will be missed [&:]

17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms

Could lead to abuse[&:]

18. Peace treaty limited access

probably a good idea[:)]

19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)

I don't like the opition but some will. [:)]

20. American trade restriction

not a big loss [:)]

21. Naval raiding

I have never seen this happen. [:)]

22. Proportional naval losses

Why not?!?!? It's one of the reason for put this game on the PC because calulating proportional losses was a pain in the rear.

23. Proportional land losses

Why not?!?!? It's one of the reason for put this game on the PC because calulating proportional losses was a pain in the rear.

24. Balance of Power peace restrictions

Fine but some player like this rule.

25. Change of Dominance status

Does't happen often but it does shape diplomacy in the game making it more interesting.[:@]

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)

I'm not a big fan but it is fine for PBEM

27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)

fine

28. All retreats are conducted by the AI

I'm worried[&:]

29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.

I'm concerned but I will hold my opion until I see how it works.

30. Access through the Dardenelles

Why not? [:@]

31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)

Not a big deal it rarely happens


To be honest these changes seriously concern me. I hope the will be resolved with patches later.

Many of the changes seem to be due to facilitate PBEM play. What about solo and hot-seat play? Retreats and Insurrection Corps place ment could be contolled by the human player.

3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

I am not a big fan of this rule as it leads to abuse. Invasions can be stopped by a 1 ship fleet. A single 1 ship fleet can intercept a larger fleet carrying several corps. If the invasion fleet wins it still has to stop its movement. And what happens to the corps if the invaders win a battle in a SZ that doesn't touch land?!?!? This seem to be a big mistake.

Sorry - my bad description of the limitations of the rule change. After an intercpetion combat, if the phasing player wins, then (a) the game retreats the loser and (b) the phasing player's movement continues.

6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

I was too terse describing this one too. You know how forces inside a beseiged city can attack back, using the 5-1 and 5-2 tables? In v1, the intention is that only a major power could launch such an attack (that includes minors you own, but not free states that are merely under your control). AFAICS, this is a pretty small thing.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

I am not a big fan of this rule as it leads to abuse. Invasions can be stopped by a 1 ship fleet. A single 1 ship fleet can intercept a larger fleet carrying several corps. If the invasion fleet wins it still has to stop its movement. And what happens to the corps if the invaders win a battle in a SZ that doesn't touch land?!?!? This seem to be a big mistake.

Sorry - my bad description of the limitations of the rule change. After an intercpetion combat, if the phasing player wins, then (a) the game retreats the loser and (b) the phasing player's movement continues.

6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

I was too terse describing this one too. You know how forces inside a beseiged city can attack back, using the 5-1 and 5-2 tables? In v1, the intention is that only a major power could launch such an attack (that includes minors you own, but not free states that are merely under your control). AFAICS, this is a pretty small thing.

Thank you for the clarification. That is much better than what I thought. Also don't take my disappointment in rules left out personal. I appreciate the heads up and realize your are the messenger. Just in general I wish most of those rules were in version 1.

10. Scuttling of ships

I assume that it can still be done as a peace term and that this only refers to voluntary scuttling. Have never seen it happen. Not a problem.

IIRC scuttling was just a rules variation in the original release. It does not benefit a player to scuttle as he still loses points. However it does prevent one's opponent from gaining extra points by winning the attack.

On the other side of the coin, you will not inflict casualties on your enemy while watches as you lose it all.

ORIGINAL: Barbu

ORIGINAL: Pippin

17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.

With out the ability to subtract PP, I don't see many British players allying with France. The big bad monster will just turn into an even bigger monster and there will be nothing Britain can do to stop it after she realizes that mistake.

Disagree there. It's far easier to bring down France than to bring down GB. There's nothing that France can do to make herself impervious from a world coalition. The same isn't true from GB. If, while allied with France, GB manages to sink either the spanish or the russian fleet, good luck bringing the british down.

Hi all

First off, I just found this site and forum and am VERY excited about EiA as a computer game.[&o]

To the above, GB not at war is a nightmare for the rest of the world!!!
GB can pick a spot, either Spain or Russia and land and destroy their fleets at will.
Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.
No, IMO, GB and France should never be at peace, for the sake of the whole world.

One other question(this may be the wrong place to ask but..) does anyone know where I can buy a copy of the game?

Thanks
Al

Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.

I know a lot of people fear Britain taking over that stretch of territory. However every time I've seen Britain try she tends to get pounced on hard somewhere along the line...

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.

I know a lot of people fear Britain taking over that stretch of territory. However every time I've seen Britain try she tends to get pounced on hard somewhere along the line...

before a really major change makes it a new version (it. that you have to pay for). This is one

True, but I tend towards that move as a mid to late game move once GB has control of the seas and can send 30-60 ships in 2 to 3 fleets into the area, with no to little fear for britain itself. One british corp and the eygptians can make a fun fight of it with the Turks.

but as with all things in this game (at least the board version) everything depends on everything else.
Al

ORIGINAL: anacrion

Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion

I agree with you; I think it would be be better to focus on EiA core - standard and optional - rules first. And, I should say that I feel quite depress that so much basic rules and standard optional are left. I was waiting for a strict and complete adaptation of the game to computer. Now I feel deceive once more...

I have been watching the EIA forums for a while, and I am looking forward to the game's release.

I wanted to put in my own two cents about the deviation list for the sake of the developers.

In my opinion, Matrix Games must include two rules in V1 of EIA that are currently out:
British change to VPs
Beseiged port city supply

The first colors the whole game. It is such a powerful tool by which GB can hold back any nation that pulls out in front of the others. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are 44 seasonal inter-phases where VPs are accounted; which means, in turn, that GB has the power to take 88 VPs from any nation or combination of nations no matter what happens on the map. How many games do you think that will affect? I believe this tool is an integral part of GB's power and that the game would not be the same without it.

On the second rule, I am not sure what the game will allow as it is now and what is being left out. It seems like there is no provision for a port city to receive supply through the sea when it is beseiged. I believe this can make a world of difference, not only to sea-faring nations, but also to the Germans. I think eliminating sea supply will take a lifeline out of Britain's hands, and to a lesser extent Spain, Turkey, and Russia. I think the game will be particularly affected in the Mediterranean as the Spanish, Turks, and British battle for minors throughout the game. Shouldn't the British fleet be able to keep, for example, Portuguese ports supplied in the face of a Spanish seige? And doesn't this increase the importance of naval dominance?

got to run

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

ORIGINAL: anacrion

Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion

I agree with you; I think it would be be better to focus on EiA core - standard and optional - rules first. And, I should say that I feel quite depress that so much basic rules and standard optional are left. I was waiting for a strict and complete adaptation of the game to computer. Now I feel deceive once more...

There are a lot of people who feel this way, but I don't think it's going to happen in the initial release (or if even that is ever going to happen). I AM however seriously hoping that if I keep paying attention to what they are doing (and not abandon this game company entirely) they will eventually get around to implementing Empires in Arms and not some Napoleonic quasi-pseudo game similar somewhat to Empires in Arms that just happens to have the name Empires in Arms as the title.

Here's looking to that day!!

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.

I know a lot of people fear Britain taking over that stretch of territory. However every time I've seen Britain try she tends to get pounced on hard somewhere along the line...

I never try to (as GB) to keep and hold North Africa, I just feel that it reallys stretches you pretty thin and it gets annoying for me to deal with when my attention should be diverted to other, more important regions. It is important to keep an eye on it, and I usually try and hold Algeria and one or two others.

However, I have played very few games where the France vs. GB (at war since beginning) was not implemented. All the gamers that I have played with always felt this was a good thing.

ps Pippin, I noticed in a post you made a comment about people who have only played the game a few times and it looked as though it was directed toward me. I have played several versions (EiA Campaign with different optional rules, Revolutionary Campaign, EiH rules implemented, scenarios, etc...) of EiA. I have played well over 100 games of EiA. I guess if you think that's "just a few times", well then, you got me.

1. Force march - It's important.
2. Defender retirement - In or out on your turn is ok
3. Naval Pursuit - If you mean the loser MUST move to a port after a loss I disagree. You must be able to decide to retreat to an adjacent area as well. (although the victor chooses which adjacent area)
4. Besieged port supply - It's important to be able to supply a port under siege.
5. Corps on loand - not a big deal
6. Besieged assault - no big loss (minors)
7. British change VPs - not terrible, this could easiliy be done through player communications.
8. Bidding for countries - np
9. Other Campaigns and scenarios - Is there anything other than the grande campaign? (1792 is ok but don't hold the game up for that)
10. scuttling of ships - to deny the enemy the vps for a lost battle, yes. (can you program a choice? If fleet blockading is larger then attack, if same attack, if larger, scuttle?)
11. demobilizing - Won't lose sleep over it.
12. repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege -

13. Militia conversion - Never play it.
14. Large fleets - ALWAYS play it
15. Limitied supply - ALWAYS play it
16. New political combinations - You limit French growth without it. (KoI when Illyria, Lombardy, Venitia, Romagna band togther they produce $40 16mp, If this option isn't used then Romagna and Illyria can't be doubled the production is then $32 13mp the extra mp is used to flesh out the 2 corps of the KoI and the fleet.) The other combinations have the same effect. You lose the ability to maximize the minors without corps' production.
17. Britain and France at war - Always play it
18 Peace treaty limited access - If you mean the access one country has over another after peace is made to remove garrisons and corps, it's more trouble than it's worth.
19. Allied voluntary access - OK (forced access -1pp per turn omitted?)
20. American trade restriction - Not sure what you mean here, I assume not allowing the peace condition restricting American trade? If so then how can France instigate a war with America and GB? Forcing this option on GB through B.6 is always fun.
21. Naval raiding - not a biggie
22/23. proportional loses naval/land - a must
24. Balance of power - If you want to ensure that all players that start the game will finish then it's important.
25. Change of dominance - important

26. Insurrection corps - tough one, a major asset to the Austrian, being able to pop a corps up at just the right time, but how much programing does it take? Or is this just a PBEM issue that requires a choice by the Austrian for every area the Turk may move into? If it's the latter then let the game slow down. If not then a cunning Turk could use this to his advantage pp wise as well as tactically.
27. Naval interception - Naval orders sound like a solution.
28. All retreats conducted by AI - GOOD! Simple rules for retreat should make this a non issue.
29. No combined move - tough one. I would look into a solution to allow this.
30. access through the dardenelles - Could this be a choice made by the Turk on his turn, He allows access to France but not Russia for the turn on his turn.
31. Cav and guard corps cannot be detached - Noone does this anyway.
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport - This is a EiH thing, if it's not in the EiA game np.
33. Privateers and privateer defence - see above.

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

Hi - I'm Ralegh, and I joined the EIANW testing team a few weeks back. A few of you will know me from the COG forum. I'm an EIA/EIH player and my interest in EIA led me to Matrix, which in turn led me to COG, and my work on the COG beta got me into the EIA beta. Professionally, I'm a Software Architect in Canberra Australia.

To help me do testing, I put together a list of features, and the beta gang helped me understand what was in and what was out for v1 of EIANW. (EIA is a huge game, so they couldn't implement everything in V1.) Here is my Consolidated Deviation List [this is really just the 'major' features - there are a number of other more minor deviations that Marshall is keeping a track of].

I don't think Marshall will consider any of these for v1 - right now we have him beavering away at bugs - but some of this stuff might make it into a patch or a version 2 - I suppose it is up to the player community to provide feedback on the relative importance of different features... This thread would be a good place. In no particular order, and with sequential numbering just to make it easy to refer to things:

Rules not implemented
1. Forced march
2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)
4. Besieged port city supply
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)
7. British change to VPs
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)
10. Scuttling of ships
11. Demobilizing
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion
14. Large fleets
15. Limited supply
16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]
17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms
18. Peace treaty limited access
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)
20. American trade restriction
21. Naval raiding
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions
25. Change of Dominance status

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.
30. Access through the Dardenelles
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport
33. Privateers and privateer defence

Hihi Ral, glad to hear you join as a tester, you've always been up to the job. My humble suggestion is that any of the above characteristics (at least original EIA's, as opposed to players' add-ons) had better not be left out, or the game would come out as an EIA "lite". [:'(]

Rules not implemented
1. Forced march - Essential [:@]
2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn) - Already talked about this a long time ago. No problem if supply line can't be trace above an unbesieged city [>:]
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.) - cant't preview all the results, let the testers do the job here [;)]
4. Besieged port city supply - another essential [:@]
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term) - i would have lived with it if this condition wasn't taken to prevent a destruction of an army or navy. [:@] That don't leave much peace choice with 18.
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can) - probably much easier to code it that to play without it [:-]
7. British change to VPs - Never see it used, only a british threat removed.
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process] - i don't care if i understand it well
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1) - Looking what V1 look like now, it wont matter... However, some scenarios would be useful as tutorial and practice.[:(]
10. Scuttling of ships - again, probably much easier to code it that to play without it [:-]

11. Demobilizing - don't care currently
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege - what's the result then?

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion - this one will greatly be missed. I always remember the vision of those hundred russian factors dissapearing fron the map. Was the sign that the Cossacks are coming.
14. Large fleets - another one changing the game for the worst
15. Limited supply - one more changing the game for the worst

16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game] - some chrome removed [:(]


17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms - Why not give 50 more ship to GB or 100 infantry factor to France...
18. Peace treaty limited access - see 5
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies) - as asked by someone else, what about forced access [&:]
20. American trade restriction - can live with that
21. Naval raiding - same
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses - ARGH again those feudals and minors corps that will take all loses. Honestly it's probably the rule with morale that is the reason for a computer version
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions - would have requiered some interpretation, but this is a NEEDED one.
25. Change of Dominance status - sad choice [:-]

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location) - do you still beleive in Santa ... er IA [&:]
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises) - need to be more explained.
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI - see 26
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply. - i hate the last sentence above all. It can kill the game.[:-]
30. Access through the Dardenelles - will please Turkey and Russia sometime
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can) - who care for that little PP
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport - Medium is missing [:D]
33. Privateers and privateer defence - nothing to say here, whore care