Matrix Games Forums

Very good one!!

I will keep it in mind for next game

ORIGINAL: fjbn

Mmmm. Is your use of Ney llegal?. It surprise me. I think that you control Cirenaica for defence, it´s not really a FS.

BTW, Britain has 19 Inf, and Cirenaica is 1/2, so, if British lost 4 Inf, it will take a whole year to replace the losses.

I'm pretty sure that it's legal :
when you take control of a minor, it become your free state until conquered by the aggressor : you can use Ney (or any other off map leader) since reinforcement phase is after the DoW phase.
moreover, if you declare war on the aggressor and keep control of the minor, or if there's a lapse of war between the aggressor and the minor, you'll keep the minor as a free state.

In order to be able to use a leader with the minor's army I would say you also have to be at war with the agressor.
At least we have used that as a house rule if not a real rule, i.e. if the controlling MP of a minor is not at war witrh the agressor, the minor may only be defended using the minor's own troops.

That is my understanding as well. Also, very gamey to have a leader teleported around the map.

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

Here is a tactic I used as the French against the British. Any time the Brit. declares war on a minor that France gets control of, I would place Ney in charge of the minor stack during the reinforcement phase(keeping him off the board and ready for this)!

As long as you don't loose all of the forces and the British get to capture Nay. It's not like you are going to get him back any time soon since peace with Britain is not that likely.

We always allowed leaders used in defense of minors, but if caught, the leader did not have to be returned until peace was made. If it was a minor, the leader was returned after it was conquered (unless at war with the leaders major power) but it cost an additional 2pp and the power that captured him gained 1pp.

yamma

All minors attacked by a Major are Frre States. I think that when a controlling Major wants to take possession of minor ,,, all other major powers can try to get said free State influenced to them ...

He who gets it decides what to do w forces ... he can DOW on Major attackin and keep Free State .. ???

Isnt any minor w corp able to free state and double production for themselves, and conq gives amount on map

Kleves ?? No Corp .. never be a free state ... cant use own production

Irish Guards

Hi Yohan
I don't think it's gamey, or teleportation to transfer leaders. You have to remember that each turn represents a month and the process of placing and then taking off a leader actually involves a two month period where he could be considered traveling, which was more than adequate to get around Europe/North Africa. It took Napoleon less than a month to sneak back from Egypt to return to France via Frigate!
Respectfully,
Monte

Sure Nappy came slinking back in that time. But realistically, war is declared and movement happens. Is Ney going to somehow magically drift over the Med?

Perhaps with an easy land route I would buy it. Or if you can show a path from a free port to the destination.

ORIGINAL: Yohan

Perhaps with an easy land route I would buy it. Or if you can show a path from a free port to the destination.

I agree with this. There are other things to consider...like national pride. It was one thing for a man from another country to work his way into a position of responsibility (like Mack or Barclay), or for a commander with some troops from his own nation to add to the native defenders that might give some reason for a nation to accept a foreigner in command.

But it would be quite another for a nation to ask (or accept) to borrow one man to change their fortunes of war. I don't see the Prussians asking to borrow Kutuzov when they had a war hero (Brunswick) already in command...and a king (albeit not a experienced leader) there.

Only after a nation has gained dominance of a free state (i.e., conquered it or formed an alliance and sent troops (in the latter case) to aid in it's defence should the controlling nation be able to supply a leader from it's own ranks.

Most states had some form of command structure, and it'd be a slap in the face for them to have to suffer under some dude from another country when he's brought no troops. He would have almost certainly brought more than the home nation's defenders to persuade the monarch not to leave his own officers in charge.

I could see the Ney gambit as a viable move.

It is legal EiA play but the debate seems to be realism.
Lafayette and Pulaski were indeed respected, proud leaders back home. But both came to the Continental Army because "that's where the action is" among other reasons.
A good house rule would be a leader could serve a freestate corp(s) if thier home nation is not at war (more restrictive) OR if no enemy troops are in home provinces (less restrictive)

Agree with Yohan and 'March - it's a minor rule that has fun possibilities of gamesmanship. But some historical perspective is ALWAYS nice.

With no restictions mentioned above Nappy make an Ottoman Army or a Swedish Army wreak some serious havoc, which would shake up the basic EiA gamepaly too much. [:-]

If France was in a European Dogfight in 1779 Lafayette would probably have stayed just like Ney would not venture to Africa to fight in what could at best be called a sideshow or terciary theatre.

Take care everbody.

You actually think Turkey is gonna be your Ally, more to gain for short turn France in acquiring territory as Protector of Empire, 22 ships right ???

you better start sellin drugs fir your economic output ,, else militia

lookin forward to playin agin Allies .. who nay Allies

Irish Guards[&o]

ORIGINAL: meyerg

A friend of mine believes Britain is in charge of keeping the anti-French alliance together. When someone is not quite on board and are not listening to reason, he suspends trade, declares war, and takes the full amount of victory points he can per turn from them. It is amazing how many people decide getting on his bad side is not worth it.

If Britain did this in a game against me he would make sure that my only goal in the game would be to see his plan fail.

If I were Spain or Russia, I would try to convince the other that we had to ally with france, invade England and force england to make a double surrender to remove the imidiate threath of him taking vp's from anyone.

If I were playing Turkey, Austria or Prussia, I would try to convince Russia and Spain to form an alliance with france and I, to the same end as mentioned above.

If they did not listen to reason, I would try to make an agreement with france: I would help him in any way I could, deploy my military if necesary, and I would sue him for peace every time he declared war and accept his demand of an unconditional surrender.

If I by some odd chance could not get that deal with France and no one would help against Britain, I would still try any way posible to make sure Britain did not win, and that he would se me as the main factor to that end.

It is amazing how many Britain players decide taking VP from me is not worth the trouble it gives.[:'(]

ORIGINAL:Forward_March
Only after a nation has gained dominance of a free state (i.e., conquered it or formed an alliance and sent troops (in the latter case) to aid in it's defence should the controlling nation be able to supply a leader from it's own ranks.

Dont say that something should not be allowed, when the rules allow it. Simply say that you usualy or allways play with a house rule that don't allow it.

To begin to try and make EIA into a realistik and historical accurate game - something that it is far from - is not something that I would like to do, as it in my experience tends to upset the gamebalance more than it alligns the game with realism or history.

ORIGINAL:oahunick
With no restictions mentioned above Nappy make an Ottoman Army or a Swedish Army wreak some serious havoc, which would shake up the basic EiA gamepaly too much.

EIA have allways allowed leaders to be placed on controlled corps. when you roll for controll of a minor country, control over any corps in that minor country is exactly what you get. In my oppinion it will upset the EIA gameplay drasticly if it is not allowed.

Since GB has to be at war with a nation to take VP, it seems to me your overall strategy against GB to stop them from taking VP is a very moot point indeed, since GB already decided it did not fear being at war with what ever nation you are playing.

That said, I have seen the reduction in VP used rarely. I have played GB many times and only recall using it twice, once against a red hot france and once against a Russia that gained dominance. Unless GB has blown his chance to win the VP race, using the rule hurts him as well as the target of the VP reduction. Not exactly a perfect trade off.

yamma

I dont se how my point is moot, If Britain early in the game decides that using VP reduction is a major part of his strategy, I will as any country, if the vp reduction has ben deployed against me or any other feel it necesary to make sure GB did not want to use that strategy again. I have always thought, what a player is willing to do against one major power, he will also be willing to do against another major power. And in every game I have played where GB have used VP reduction prior to the last two years of game time, I have allways been able to persuade France Russia and Spain to se it the same way. So the deployment of VP reduction prior to the last two years have in my experience allways resultet in GB loosing their chance of winning.

Any strategy that results in the complete loss of the Brittish chance of winning, could only be moot if the British own strategy ensures that they will loose. So to say my strategy to keep Britain from taking VP, is moot. Is to say that if Britain takes vp prior to the two last years of game time, they will automaticly have lost any chance of winning the game.


So if you as GB dont fear driving a potential ally into French arms by declaring war on him and taking VP's from him, that is because you have never played against people who thought stealing VP the lowest thing GB can do.

What a lot of people are forgetting is that if no nation reaches their Victory Point total, Britain wins. This is why Britain can afford to sacrifice the points to keep others down.

you're right. For example, EiA rules says that initial fleet strenght marks the number of ships of line or a number of auxiliary ships (frigates) of every power. Well, that´s not true. GB had 100 SOL and maybe 150-200 frigates spread all over the world, Spain had 50-60 SOL and a number like this in frigates and the same for France. If you are realistic in numbers but you aplly the double movement, GB will rule the waves still more than it was in reality.

So if you as GB dont fear driving a potential ally into French arms by declaring war on him and taking VP's from him, that is because you have never played against people who thought stealing VP the lowest thing GB can do.

"Lowest thing" That is a strange comment. Its a game, its a rule...who cares, it is part of the potential strategies available. My counter to your threats if I was playing GB would be the same as any other strategy. Make sure your alliances are in place.

If you and I were in the same game the use of VP reduction by GB would be treated by me as any other action by another player. If he is my enemy, I would still fight him. If I was neutral I would weigh the impact on my fortunes. If he is my ally, go for it.

Until of course he is no longer my ally. [;)]

Well, lets assume I am Russia. If France got too many VPs too fast, I do not think anyone would object (except France) if Britain subtracted points off of France. In fact, I could see a case where Britain could make profit from bribes here. Everyone donates a few dollars to Britain, and in turn Britain makes sure she keeps France tied down from crossing the finish line too quickly