AAR - Ralegh

[YohanTM2]

Hey Ralegh,

I think you might be off a bit on the losses in the AAR? You said:

Moving the blockade into place, I discovered the French had set their main fleet to intercept - so I set about deliberately trying to lure them out... Eventually, they came out to fight, and we trounced them (10 French losses and 20 British). The French retreated into St Malo.

Are the losses reversed?

Rob

[Jabba]

Shouldn't Spain be allied to France in January 1805?

[cdbeck]

Matrix makes me hate weekends... Puts this up, then it turns to Saturday when their is no chance of release. [;)]

Nice AAR, I was wondering about that casualty thing too, seems that would be a British loss as it stands. The video AAR really take the cake and need to be the "gold standard" by which future AAR are judged. Good show Ralegh!

I was wondering though, to take casualties seems to be a good amount of "clicks." Is this accurate? Also, does one get to see the "rolling" phase of combat, or does it just "resolve" quickly and tell you how many to kill?

SoM

[Ralegh]

a) I must have made a typo reversing the casulties in the naval interception: the French lost MORE ships.
b) There are no pre-existing alliances in te game at the moment, and only the France-Britain pre-existing war. Lots of alliances tend to be made in the first few turns, with France-Spain and France-Turkey being likely but not always.
c) I think the casulties work pretty well - when I clicked on "Inf" after taking the cav factor was actually unnecessary.
d) I will try to get a longer field battle, so you can see each round occuring.  You get a chance to reinforce, commit the guards, etc - Britain probably won't show many larger battles, but we will see.

[alaric318]

greetings, and thanks for clarifications and advice, in empires in arms one thing for me very important is that in manpower and in money it cost much time to make available the cost of the at start army, this can be said for each and all the powers, maybe i like if there are a option of "richer economy" as it does have "forge of freedom", givin more recruit freedom to the player,
 
best regards,
 
alarick.

[Ralegh]

Murat30 - thats a very interesting idea, and one I have not come across before. I suppose it would be possible to have a "setup phase" where you started from a certain amount of money and manpower, and built your starting forces. That would make an interesting variant. I wonder how many France's would build the fleet at all it they had any choice?

This is not a standard part of the game, however, and is extremely unlikely to make it into the first release. I will suggest it as one option that could go into an expansion pack - that should get it CONSIDERED, although I can't promise it would get in.

Come to think of it, I can't promise there would be an expansion pack - that would probably depend on sales being good enough...

[alaric318]

greetings, i think that to make available as a computer game is enough for an initial release, on the boardgame version it is not easy, it indeed is very hard to finish even a single turn, all this implemented right on the computer and adding giving computer opponents make worth the purchase, i think i do not make mistake if say that very much people will have his first empires in arms finished with matrix computer version, about troops another very important concern is the fact that the main power of france, and this is because the rule around the death of napoleon in battle, france have the ability to make a remake of "la grande armee", think that napoleon is the better rating leader, he will not suffer on combat die rolls with a very large army, as it is historical, to defeat this army in the empires in arms community is a fact of permanent thinking about it, most of the leaders take penalties with increased corps commands under them, not so napoleon and include the imperial guard and you have a recreation very faithfull to what is the grande armee on real napoleonic europe, if games features all this it will be the better wargame for this year, some are good games but empires in arms and a computer system that do all the work on know the rules and tables that can take one night for one turn is an good-outstanding product, is my oppinion but for me i think it makes sense,

thanks for all support,

with best regards,

alarick.

[cdbeck]

Thanks Ralegh, for the clarification. I remember reading your guide to CoG almost more than the manual, so keep this stuff coming. [:)]

I guess I was thinking about alliances and stuff, and had a few questions. The map begins with the European map in 1805 (I have not played the boardgame), right? So doesn't this make France relatively powerful and have some "near allies" with France's client states (like the Kingdom of Italy)? Even without the automatic war with England, I would think that most games would end up with a coalition against the might of Imperial France, or am I mistaken.

I guess what I am confused about are the "war aims" of the countries in Empire in Arms. Do the British start with more "victory points" so that, if France fails to be appropriately aggressive, England will prevail (note shameless V for Vendetta reference) for keeping the continental status quo? Or are the war aims closer to risk, where every side is attempting to expand their empires at the expense of another (meaning that there could be an early "Austro-Prussian War" and France could ally with Russia against England)? Clearing this up would greatly help me understand the game.

Thanks for all your work Ralegh, I am super excited about this game. Can't wait to play it!

SoM

[Adraeth]

@Son of Monfort, in the boardgame every Major Power can win because the victory points are scored in different ways regarding a player will be France or Spain. There is a track in which countries are considered "good powers", "medium powers" or "fiasco zone"... this give variations on diplomatic actions, but victory points are awarded in different ways.. for istance there is even the possibility to make a bid declaring a certain amount of victory points at the beggining of a game...
 
i know this might be difficult to master now without the game, anyway i think you can find some .pdf format ot .txt of Empires in Arms on the web, i am pretty sure of that.
 
In the end, a player can win even with Ottoman Empire not forcing him however to conquer all the map.[:)]

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Thanks Ralegh, for the clarification. I remember reading your guide to CoG almost more than the manual, so keep this stuff coming. [:)]

I guess I was thinking about alliances and stuff, and had a few questions. The map begins with the European map in 1805 (I have not played the boardgame), right? So doesn't this make France relatively powerful and have some "near allies" with France's client states (like the Kingdom of Italy)? Even without the automatic war with England, I would think that most games would end up with a coalition against the might of Imperial France, or am I mistaken.

I guess what I am confused about are the "war aims" of the countries in Empire in Arms. Do the British start with more "victory points" so that, if France fails to be appropriately aggressive, England will prevail (note shameless V for Vendetta reference) for keeping the continental status quo? Or are the war aims closer to risk, where every side is attempting to expand their empires at the expense of another (meaning that there could be an early "Austro-Prussian War" and France could ally with Russia against England)? Clearing this up would greatly help me understand the game.

Thanks for all your work Ralegh, I am super excited about this game. Can't wait to play it!

SoM

If you need/want to look up the board game rules, FAQ, other AAR's etc, have a look at http://eia.xnetz.com/

[cdbeck]

Thanks guys! I wondered about this, as it seemed to me that victory requirements for France would be different that victory for the Turks. I'll browse those rules, to get an idea.

Now this computer version is a mix of EiA and EiH, right?

SoM

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Thanks guys! I wondered about this, as it seemed to me that victory requirements for France would be different that victory for the Turks. I'll browse those rules, to get an idea.

Now this computer version is a mix of EiA and EiH, right?

SoM

Another useful link is http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah ... h20030801a which contains the original strategy article on EiA from the Avalon Hill General magazine. It also hints/explains a little about the different countries victory levels and what it entails.

[napoleonbuff]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

I guess I was thinking about alliances and stuff, and had a few questions. The map begins with the European map in 1805 (I have not played the boardgame), right? So doesn't this make France relatively powerful and have some "near allies" with France's client states (like the Kingdom of Italy)? Even without the automatic war with England, I would think that most games would end up with a coalition against the might of Imperial France, or am I mistaken.

I guess what I am confused about are the "war aims" of the countries in Empire in Arms. Do the British start with more "victory points" so that, if France fails to be appropriately aggressive, England will prevail (note shameless V for Vendetta reference) for keeping the continental status quo? Or are the war aims closer to risk, where every side is attempting to expand their empires at the expense of another (meaning that there could be an early "Austro-Prussian War" and France could ally with Russia against England)? Clearing this up would greatly help me understand the game.

There are seven major powers; most start with control of some of the minors (France has many).

Each major power has a different victory point requirement to win; France's VP requirement is so high that France is forced into actively pursuing VPs via conquests most of the time, while Turkey can win by doing nothing and just avoiding the attention of other players.

[malcolm_mccallum]

Thanks for the AAR.

Sadly, it has made me less interested in purchasing the game.

To see the British running around with land armies besieging Paris and winning and getting a conditional peace out of France in 1805 shows just how broken the game can be.

The AI appears incompetent.

[Don60420]

I still plan on buying the game the minute it comes out, but such an easy victory by Britain in 1805, on the hardest difficulty level, does give one pause. In 1805 any British army attempting to take Paris would have been destroyed almost effortlessly by the French. I will hope this was a fluke and that the AI normally plays a better game.

[alaric318]

greetings, well, i think the computer opponent taken in account, as someone make point very well, taken in account all variables of such a game, all facets is not that bad as seems, in 1805 it is austerlitz, most french troops are around ulm, northern italy fighting and maneouvering against austria and russia superior and combined armies, in the game is a fact of deccision for the player that plays france, but for france, given the victory point system is crucial to gain regions and increase the victory point income, that needed much troops trough austria and possibly prussia, in adding, this is not the first time that a play of empires in arms the english chanel is the key to victory, for both england and france, but it is more difficult to invade england as england have not to worry about spain prussia and austria, as the french player indeed must or should worry if not want to go to the fiasco zone on the victory, and standard is not enough for victory most of the plays in this game for france, historically is when all european nations pact against france when france is defeated, leipzig 1813 onwards, but the fact is that such a alliance with human players can arise from the first turn, not in 1813, or i am missing something?, well, do you think that a computer opponent can arise victorious if human players under control of england prussia austria and russia pact against france in 1805?, for sure even a experienced and high-dexterity player, playing france in such a game or play will be defeated, as a colateral note i can say that this style of coalitions is not a "feature" of this game alone, it happens now and then at a common pace in all games about diplomacy, most players of empires in arms know that france if not "reduced" will win most of the games played, that arise a interesting question and concern, about two at start setup different, one if it is historical france against europe or instead a free for all and france will be free of all this pressure, maybe with at hand rules comes to mind some short of "house rules" about fixed at start alliances for a fast fix, main factions being england and france and onwards each of them select out one allied of available players and so the "all against france" problem is solved as there will have two capable of wining sides from start,

it is my oppinion, thanks for take the time to read out all this,

with best regards,

alarick.

[Norden_slith]

ORIGINAL: Murat30

greetings, well, i think the computer opponent taken in account, as someone make point very well, taken in account all variables of such a game, all facets is not that bad as seems, in 1805 it is austerlitz, most french troops are around ulm, northern italy fighting and maneouvering against austria and russia superior and combined armies, in the game is a fact of deccision for the player that plays france, but for france, given the victory point system is crucial to gain regions and increase the victory point income, that needed much troops trough austria and possibly prussia, in adding, this is not the first time that a play of empires in arms the english chanel is the key to victory, for both england and france, but it is more difficult to invade england as england have not to worry about spain prussia and austria, as the french player indeed must or should worry if not want to go to the fiasco zone on the victory, and standard is not enough for victory most of the plays in this game for france, historically is when all european nations pact against france when france is defeated, leipzig 1813 onwards, but the fact is that such a alliance with human players can arise from the first turn, not in 1813, or i am missing something?, well, do you think that a computer opponent can arise victorious if human players under control of england prussia austria and russia pact against france in 1805?, for sure even a experienced and high-dexterity player, playing france in such a game or play will be defeated, as a colateral note i can say that this style of coalitions is not a "feature" of this game alone, it happens now and then at a common pace in all games about diplomacy, most players of empires in arms know that france if not "reduced" will win most of the games played, that arise a interesting question and concern, about two at start setup different, one if it is historical france against europe or instead a free for all and france will be free of all this pressure, maybe with at hand rules comes to mind some short of "house rules" about fixed at start alliances for a fast fix, main factions being england and france and onwards each of them select out one allied of available players and so the "all against france" problem is solved as there will have two capable of wining sides from start,

it is my oppinion, thanks for take the time to read out all this,

with best regards,

alarick.

Murat30, much as I hate to say it, this is nearly unreadable. There is exactly one "." and that is after alarick. [;)] To top it off, youre english is a tad hard to read in the first place - no offense please, Im obviously not native english either. I value your opinion, we have both been around here for a while waiting for this one. This time, I gave up on your input, which is a shame. [:(]

best regards,

[MPHopcroft1]

As I posted in the wrong section, what I want to know is what France as a player power can do to prevent such a British adventure from being attempted, much less succeeding. Historically, such an invasion would be possible but the Admiralty and whitehall chose note to engage in such adventures.

The thing that seems clear from this AAR is that if you leave an opening it WILL be exploited if it is to the enemy's advantage to do so. Ralegh ackowledged this adventure wopuld have ended in disaster had the French chosen to fight to their full capacity.

[Roads]

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: Roads

In the board game a single French corps that can easily have a leader sent to join it can wipe out the entire British army in 1805. And in the board game the French would keep a few weak corps kicking around to keep the British guessing.

Of course in the board game the British can't accept a conditional peace from France anyway....

I can't imagine that tha AAR approach would work in MP. France can easily spare a single corps, and while the British might cause one turns worth of trouble after that they'd have to skeddadle for the ships.

I agree, in MP the brit would pay for such an attempt.
I'm also disappointed with the AI, it looks like it is too easy to manipulate the AI into (a) surrendering and (b) giving you money. who ever heard of nations lending the BRITS $$?