Where did the Cavalry Go!!!?

[Grimrod42]

I looked in the forum and could find no mention of it eleswhere so I will post here.

Where did the cavalry go from the first 3 Russaisn corps go?
Was this done on purpose and if so why?

[Soapy Frog]

Indeed the corps stength changes seem odd. What happened to the Russian army?

[j-s]

Yes, they are odd.
I wonder if there is a list about new corps strengths. That would be great (and original corps strength back would be great, too)

[praem]

It is the OOB of EiH.
 
Other changes are:
Janisary of Turkey has room for 3 cav!??
Spain lost 2 inf from most corps & 4 from some, and then gained some militia-corps
Austria and Prussia gained room for inf. in their guard/grenadier corps
 
The fleet strength are quite different - in EiA GB had 100, France incl. Holland had 64, Spain 57 and Russia 49. Now  Spain 57 and Russia 35, while both France and GB gets a lot of extra ships
 
Dont know why these changes where done...

[Grimrod42]

At first I thought that as well so I went to check it up

http://www.empiresinharm.com/oob/ru1802.pdf

and Russian OOB in 1802 is
I    18i 2 c
II    14i 1c
III    14i 2c

Pream do you have the link to where you found your info?

anyone have any idea why this was changed?

[praem]

I believe I saw on this forum somewhere that the OOB was lifted from EiH - didnt think to investegate further. If it isnt as you've shown, I dont know why it was done this way.

[AresMars]

1805 OOB can be found here;

OOB Corps

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/countries.php

OOB Set-up

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/1805.html


OOB Info from EiH v4.x I believe

http://www.empiresinharm.com/oob.htm

[Grimrod42]

In the pc game
Russia has
I 16i
II 14i
III 14i

[zaquex]

The current implementation is a serious weakening of the military powers of russia compared to the original game where russia was concidered the 2nd most powererfull military power in the game. Here I think both Austria and Prussia is stronger.
 
The maximum effective russian army vs Napoleon is 8 corps one of these must be a cav corp or it has no cav at all, also the corps are smaller 14 compared to 20 for the first corp. I miss the first 3 Russian corps with cav alot.
 
Im also unsure about this variant of the turkish corps, with the limited numbers of corps that can carry inf who are essential to making garrisons etc I would rather have two pure inf corps like in the original game and the cav in the NC corp. There was someone commenting that for historical reasons it would be more correct if none of the turkish inf corps had cav and all the cav was in the IC corp. I would like that from a turkish playing perspective I beleive it would make turkey stronger and easier to play, although I have not seen any proof if it is more historical correct

[ecn1]

Yah, i noticed that too...it does seem that Russia's strength has been curtailed, and that its corps are inferior uncessarily compared to corps strengths in eia or eih...can we have some comments from the game designers/testers on why this may be?

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Yah, i noticed that too...it does seem that Russia's strength has been curtailed, and that its corps are inferior uncessarily compared to corps strengths in eia or eih...can we have some comments from the game designers/testers on why this may be?

The infantry corps come straight out of the EiH 3.0 OOB, which was what this game started out as some 4+ years ago when Michael Treasure was onboard. The V Cavalry Corps was later tweaked to make up for the change. Any specific questions concerning the why or why not would be for Michael Treasure to answer (where ever he is). Anyway, here’s a side by side for comparison.

Richard

[Soapy Frog]

Where did you get this lovely spreadsheet?

[zaquex]

How does this translate if you compare EiA boardgame with EiANW?
 
The best army Russia can achieve on its own is by overstacking Kutosov to 8 corps this means: we want to avoid an easy cav advantage for France and if we win we want to take advantage of persuit so one corp needs to be a cav corp. The expected losses for a fight with a maximized Napoleon is probably in the area of about 20 casualties per battle segment thats 60 losses on average not counting persuit we obviously dont want to take expensive Guard or Cav factors factors so minimum 2-3 extra losses caused by artillery isnt really gonna make that much difference its probably better to be able to soak up more persuit losses and the artillery corp would also be expensive losses if it comes to that.
 
What does this leave us? I-III corp with 42 Inf one cav corp with 6 cav, Imperial Guard with 10 Guard and one cav and finaly we pad up the army with another 3 Inf corps for 30 more Inf.
 
42 I +30 I +10 G + 7 C = 89 factors 7 of wich are cav.
 
In the original EiA OOB you would get 102 of wich 6 is cav
 
In a case where you are not overstacking the relation would be:
 
48 factors of wich 7 is cav in EiANW
 
62 factors of wich 6 is cav in EiA
 
So in effect the russian army in battle formation is about one full corp weaker in EiANW than in EiA.
 
I dont know why the EiH 3.0 OOB been the base for developing EIANW ive heard a few say its the weakest EiH variant and the 4.0 variant seem to me more reasonable. I have however never played any of the EiH variants so i should really comment on the balance of the different EiH variants.
 
Its is however clear to me that the number you can have in an army is the most important factor to determine its efficiency and corp size together with leaders is what determines this. And to me it seems that Russia is the power that have got the shortest end of the stick in this implementation.

[Soapy Frog]

I agree, the Russian army already lacked "Density", the new OOB just compounds the problem.

[zaquex]

for next x-mas ill wish for a spelling program

[Grimrod42]

I see
but according the the Empires in Harm website that is not the Russian OOB
so there seems to be a discrepancy.

Would it be possible to move the EiANW more in line with the original game on this.

[pzgndr]

Any specific questions concerning the why or why not would be for Michael Treasure to answer (where ever he is).

Stuff like this leaves newbies like myself wondering about the as-implemented design. I would assume there was a good basis for making the changes in EiH, and that later versions were "better" than earlier ones. Which begs the question, why was EiH 3.0 used and not 4.0 or 5.0? Curious too that Mike Treasure himself doesn't weigh in with comments on the game now that it's been released, or perhaps he has(?). I'm not looking for full explanations right now, but eventually some designer's notes for the computer version should be provided to explain the decisions made.

I expect once an editor is provided that different versions of the campaigns and scenarios will appear with various OOBs from either pure-EiA or pure-EiH or variations on the Matrix defaults. But again this begs a question, which set of OOBs and setups is the most historically correct? And shouldn't the Matrix defaults strive for that ideal??

[Monadman]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Any specific questions concerning the why or why not would be for Michael Treasure to answer (where ever he is).

Stuff like this leaves newbies like myself wondering about the as-implemented design. I would assume there was a good basis for making the changes in EiH, and that later versions were "better" than earlier ones. Which begs the question, why was EiH 3.0 used and not 4.0 or 5.0? Curious too that Mike Treasure himself doesn't weigh in with comments on the game now that it's been released, or perhaps he has(?). I'm not looking for full explanations right now, but eventually some designer's notes for the computer version should be provided to explain the decisions made.

I expect once an editor is provided that different versions of the campaigns and scenarios will appear with various OOBs from either pure-EiA or pure-EiH or variations on the Matrix defaults. But again this begs a question, which set of OOBs and setups is the most historically correct? And shouldn't the Matrix defaults strive for that ideal??

Well perhaps I should have also included Marshall in that sentence because he obviously knows the skinny on the why and why not, although, several EiA vets camping on his left nut for the last two years has brought this game closer to EiA then is was in 2005 and as I stated before; it is still a work in progress, but now we have a larger army of EiA connoisseurs to help with the continuing transition.

Richard

[zaquex]

EiA has in my oppinion first and most not been claiming to be historical, its first priority has always been balance something its pretty good at. It might be different for EiH but the 3.0 version is VERY different from any other version ive seen.

[Grimrod42]

I think this should be fixed as a priority
The game was balanced as it was meant to be.

Michael Treasure is a good guy but I think the game should have been based on the original.