Matrix Games Forums

What on earth was the other major powers doing while you had all your troops in Finland?

France or Russia should be invaded by at least three or four other countries... (I know sometimes peace and diplomacy makes funny resuls...)

I would say that 200K of French having a spa in Finland would mean that the Spanish had occupied Paris and every other regional capital of France.

Another question with this idea of limiting stacks - who really wanders around with fully factored up corps all the time. A bit of forage losses, a few minor battles, the coming together of corps for the big bash who have otherwise been having a hard time, means that it is only ideal circumstances when you will have corps maxed out.

How did the French get to Finland anyway? Did the British allies give them a ride?

JH

Why 12 french corps was in Finland, well because England was also angry at Russia, so england sailed 7 of my corps there and i moved 5 myself. (did i forget to include that England and France had become allies) <g>

Also had spain tried, then would my reserve corps have taken him out. I had 5 infantry corps and 2 cav corps at home along with 7 or 8 minor corps.

More then enough to match Spain.

Prussia could do nothing, i saved him from Russia, because after my war with prussia, then had Prussia only 2 Guards left and russia wanted to attack him and i allied with prussia to save prussia from a easy russia victory.

Again a Prussia is not anything close to a major power.

Have on the other hand, tried a strange manouver, Russia player told me as Prussia, that i had no chance to win, even with England to help me, so i talk to the English player and we declared war on Russia and invaded him, we beat him back, first 1 big battle, i lost around 15 cavalry, we lost first battle, but he lost more then us total, just no cavalry, so the English financed the lost cavalry and we pushed on, England took St. petersborg and moskov, while i concentrated on mid Russia, to take all the manpower yielding provinces.

Never tried this before, but we won.

That's a pretty screwed up game! You must have had quite a few newbies on deck. Plus playing without the French-British peace restrictions is a bad idea for game-balance.

we did play with the france and british part, England Surrendered unconditionally, when i managed to place 4 corps in England.

It was the player playing Russia who made a mess of it, as he wanted to pick on the weak and i could not let Russia just win the game nor could england, so we found that we had to ally, to be sure we could trust each other.

Never seen it happen since then

Nevertheless England and France can never ally, and therefore England can never transport French troops.

there is no rules that suggested that.

It said, that unless one part unconditionally surrenders to the other side, then could they never ally.
England lost and we could there for ally.

Nice strange game.

I have never seen that, but it all depends on the players as usual. The rule regarding GB versus France is due to the dominant status of those two countries, if I am correct. If one country loses the dominant status, then they should be allowed to ally. Question then, if let say Russia becomes dominant instead of France, would England then automaticly be forced to NOT ally with Russia?

Could make sense from a balanced game point of view, but hardly historical...?

Any suggestions?

ohh yeah, England lost their dominance

In a way its a bit silly that they have to fight, what if France lose 2/3 of their leaders and Russia is dominant instead, as you say, then should it be england and Russia, especially if france is nolonger dominant.

But again game dont refer to this, but that explains also why we prefer to play 1792 instead of 1805

1792 is a more balanced scenario.

If you wish to play between equals...

But then France always have problems. I think I remember a rule considering France and diplomacy in THAT scenario. I think it went something like France is NOT allowed to ally with the other nations...? The royal houses of Europe distrusted the people of the revolution. Killing royalty was not very popular at that given time.

:p

Well thats why i hope they include the EIH in the game, as i want to try those rules out, as they look at interested

We always played with a special rule:

If France survives intact, until 1802.....
England MUST make peace with France at least for three months.

Otherwise...the English would never make peace, because then
France would become dominant. They would be stupid to allow that.

have you ever tried a Dominant Russia? while corps dont improve, then does the morale suddenly get in the way and no need to give Russia 10 more money

A dominant Russia?

Hmmm, that normaly makes a very weak Austria-Prussia. The russian players I met have always tried to avoid that.

A question regarding house rules...
If the dominant status is changed, should not the corp sizes change? I know the original EIA was just "a paper" for the order of battle. Is it possible to but an option in the computer version for changing the corp sizes?

This gives another interresting thought regarding "equal games", what if you make a scenario where all nations has equal number of corps and sizes available? I know very ahistorical, but a nice idea...

a Dominant Prussia with improved corps that would be nice

In EIH you see this a bit with France, like they are like as the Kings troops and the revolution troops, nice difference, i have to try and play France, if they include the EIH stuff