Matrix Games Forums

Greetings. This is another in a series of "tips" notes I intend to write. I plan on writing them for each major power, using knowledge I gained from playing the boardgame, but applied to the computer version. I hope to create a separate thread for each nation. If I get ambitious, I'll create a thread for general game tips as well (tips that apply to all powers).

[center]I would ask that only tips be placed here, not debates or thanks or whatever. If you have a problem with or like a tip, write the author a PM and convince them, and they can edit their entry. That should keep the length of these to a minimum.
Tips that don't agree with other tips, however, are perfectly fine. Everyone is free to post their tips here.[/center]

Ahhh, Tchaikovsky! Such rousing music we have for the opening theme in this game. But, it's only part of the story.

Yes, Napoleon lost trying to get to Russia's capitals. But, your opponent knows this fact, and is not likely to make the same mistake in this game.

On the other hand, you are not likely to be handing him his lunch anytime soon, either.

Russia has some very important decisions to make, before the game even starts. The thinking process starts with some givens:

Turkey is your enemy. He will NOT come after you early in the game unless

1) You are too aggressive against him, and
2) He gets what he wants of North Africa quickly, AND
3) He gets money from an ally to fund the war effort.

But, after 6-24 months, rest assured that Turkey WILL come after you. And, you had best be ready for it whenever it comes. You must have a force in the field that can slow him down, for he can reach your capital in five months if he pushes things, 12 if he goes safely. You can reach the same area with corps fighting Sweden or France in about 6-10 months. As a result, you must choose your wars AND your commitments carefully.

You can afford a two front war. And, France can never realistically have a chance at forcing you to surrender, unless he has total and unconditional peace with Austria and Prussia, and is has an at least neutral Spain.

However, you cannot really fight a three front war (Scandinavia and other minors, France, and Turkey). Unfortunately, you have FOUR potential enemies at the beginning of the game (add Great Britain to the list). If Prussia or Austria goes to war without having not defeated France, it's time to quit that game and go watch I Love Lucy reruns or something. But, still, those four are going to be tough to juggle. Impossible, in my opinion.

So, the first decision you need to make is a pair of related decisions:

1) Which war(s) do you definitely want to take part in? AND,
2) Which war(s) do you definitely want to avoid?

Turkey is unavoidable and not up to you. You have to count on him going to war against you, even if he does not, because you can't afford to have him come after a denuded homeland. So, he counts as a number one, even if it doesn't actually occur.

Scandinavia is difficult to avoid fighting in if you want to grow. There's really nowhere else to grow for you.

So, this means you are already looking at a two front war without even considering GB or France! You had best consider carefully any war-like inclinations to or from either of them. It seems to me that, not only should you avoid war with at least one of them, but you need to GUARANTEE no war against the other. The only way to do this is to make friends with that power (i.e. ally with them, in game turns).

You have two choices, really: France or GB. Either choice by you changes the whole scope of the game. Both can be deadly if you mess them up. But, the reality of the situation is that it's going to take some VERY substantial diplomacy to avoid having to pick one or the other.

The one thing you want to avoid above all things is being at war with both. You can't beat France or GB, and GB can't beat you. But, having a war with either is very costly. So, let's see: Loss of PP combined with no hope for victory. Not good.

Pick one, and fight it with all you have. Or, at least a quarter of it.

Here are some plusses and minuses to war with either:

France (minuses):

All you will really be adding is extra factors in assistance to one or both of the central powers. And, up against Napoleon, you are likely to lose more PP than you gain in these battles.

Your strength is in large armies over short distances or at home. France is a LONG way from home. You'll have to build a supply chain through a port to have any chance of it working. And, if you are at war with Turkey and not winning, and it is winter, you have no supply. By spring, whatever you took six months to get into the field will have foraged itself to death. Learn the lesson the real Napoleon learned: Long supply lines KILL your army.

You are going to be asked to provide a leader, especially early in the game. So, you need one in Scandinavia, one available against Turkey, should war erupt, and one against France. But, wait: Don't you only HAVE two good leaders? Oops.

France (plusses):

Your cossacks are very valuable. Even having ONE of them puts a crimp in France's ability to move around, at least for a time. And, he can't just attack it, unless he sends a cav corp.

Your army LIVES off of militia (because you can't afford all regular infantry). Well, militia isn't so bad against France. You are only a little bit worse off than you would be against one of the other continental powers. But, put those militia against Turkey, and you all of a sudded grant him equal status vs. your army. Not pretty.

You have boats available to move around with and create supply lines.

Great Britain (minuses):

You lose your regular trade. It's not much to start with, and then you give it up with the war.

You MIGHT lose your American trade. It's not likely, since it's not a good strategy for him until later in the game, but it COULD happen.

You can't get to him. Yes, you can conquer Scandinavia, but you can't get to the main homeland at all, unless you get lucky (and, being unlucky just once, and you lose your fleets).

If he decides to land some troops, you have a major problem on your hands. If you don't have a good leader, he will win most of the time. His morale is just too high.

You can't reliably use sea supply. Think through what this means while you are walking from Finland to Stockholm. Unpleasant. Plus, he can drop a corps in behind your lines at any time, unless they are all defended. If he does while you are stretched out, your army starves to death trying to get back into supply.

Great Britain (plusses):

You will have cavalry superiority anywhere you like, provided he lands somewhere you can get to.

you will also have significant numerical superiority. His three corps (with Wellington) will have at most 42 factors in them. Your four corps will have over sixty, and likely cav superiority to boot. If he wants his cavalry (to prevent superiority), he has to drop to 36 factors total. Not a pretty picture.

The only places he will attack are the capitals of your minors, or St. Petersburg. This means you can focus your attention. Remember that his army MUST stay at least 2 turns (more if he fails the break-in roll), so you will have an opportunity to kill whatever army he brought. Which could be his WHOLE army, since he doesn't get a whole lot of manpower.

Your ships are combined with France's ships. While this doesn't tip the scales that much, it DOES mean he has to be MUCH more careful. And, if Spain happens to join you and France, GB is in real trouble.

Once you make the decision about France vs. Great Britain, you still have to concern yourself with Scandinavia. It's a real war, and you CAN lose it. One lucky set of rolls on his part in the first naval combat, and you may very well never conquer it. And, this is true regardless of who gets control of it.
 
If you wait, your odds go up, because you can afford to sit tight and walk, provided you are at peace with GB. But, it's not going to be a piece of cake. I've even seen Russia win the first battle for stockholm, and then lose the second one. Then Russia had to leave a fleet at sea, and so on, ad nauseum. He got it eventually, but it was a costly war.
 
Denmark is a better prospect, but it's closer to GB than even Sweden is. You had better be friendly, or he will prevent you from taking it (or, doing anything else, in fact).
 
If you can get a commitment of peace including a sane division of Scandinavia, it's worth taking a stab at it. But, the only person you should negotiate with about this is GB, because France doesn't matter to you in this area, and Spain will be, at best, disinterested.
 
This is one reason Russia tends to decide in favor of having GB as a friend over France.

If GB does not give you Scandinavia, consider a naval alliance with France. France should bring Spain to the naval alliance through gentle prodding if Spain can not see the advantage of naval parity. If Turkey has a tight alliance with France...then you have another. GB needs Russia at the outset. Russia can drive a hard bargain. Now, if you are playing with newbies in Spain and France that can not see the strategy...and decide to backstab you instead...then you will probably not have any of Scandinavia...as happened in our current 1800-1815 Grand Campaign game.

If Russia garrisons fully St Perersburg (British protection) and minor garrison in the south, they have (IMHO) little to fear from a Turkish attack. They can  build or move an army to contain the Turkish threat. Also a full garrison and a fleet (or so) in Sevastopol could cause a lot of trouble to Turkey.
 
Your ideas are good for a full seven player game. The AI is not really that good.
Jon

Never ally with the French--What are you thinking......keep all military options on the table when it comes to France--Napoleon was the 18th century version of Saddam!!! [:D]

Yes, I always looks to any "diplomacy-style" strategy with suspect.

EiA is not Diplomacy: your enemy is FRANCE. Sooner or later, you'll have to enter a coalition against Napoleon. And of course sooner is better, as Austria and Prussia are still a force to deal with and not two beaten empires desperately looking for some opportunity to get 2 political points, no matter what.

AFTER France is under control (and it could be a LONG after), Russia can start thinking about expansion, Turkey, whatever.

I start think expansion early and often. I try to ally with either England, France and Austria from the begining. Austria to protect my flank and France and England to possible play one off on the other.
 
I am playing against the computer I do not ally with Prussia as I normally find my self in a short war with them. Helps me to build Poland.
 
Jon

Playing against the AI is good to learn the game, but that's all. Any experienced EiA player could win against the AI no matter the strategy....As Russia I could start the game by declaring war to everyone and win anyway.

Some thoughts about playing Russia against human players.

From my past experience I would say Russia have very little to fear from Turkey unless they join forces with another central major power in a combined war with you or you march all your troops to Paris. 

Turkey have in general a lot more to fear from Russia. The limited possibilities of expansion for Russia, at least if at friendly terms with Austria and Prussia ( which in most cases is a reasonable and sometimes even needed strategy to avoid a total French domination ) almost forces Russia to attack Turkey ( even if not strategicly needed, usually Russia finds himself in a situation where he is bored and wants action or PP, the obvious target if France still is strong is Turkey ). Therefore in most games the Turkish player even if wanting war with Russia will wait, either for Russia to DOW or to get involved as an ally to a central power Russia finds himself at war with.

Austria is a good ally against Turkey, Prussia can give you Poland. GB can give you money or be a general pain in the arse.

France looks very tempting at the start of the game but usually its not in your best long term interest. It makes France very strong and unless you trust him unconditonally, he will eventually come for you and even if he dont your probably giving away your chance of winning the game. If France lose a coupple of wars the situation is very different and an alliance with France can then be very profitable and sometimes needed. A crushed France can make Prussia/Austria your worst enemies especially if you have treated them bad in the opening game.

Dont neglect Spain as a possible ally, even if far appart you have many common interests and very few reasons to fight eachother. Together they also have a sizable fleet. In the FtF game or if combined moves get implemented there is also other advantages for Russia to ally Spain at least as long as the enemy aint France or GB.

Be aware that Prussia and Austria needs your help, its not in your interest to have them steamrolled by the French. See them as your buffer and perimeter defence, but at the same time always make sure you get something for helping them. Sweden is a good bargaining prize or Denmark, Neaples or Egypt could be concidered but are definatly harder to keep and would definatly put you on collission course with other powers. Another possibility is to make GB pay for your war expenses and/or losses (although Sweden is the prefered and primary price), if you play your cards right you might even be able to win Poland peacefully.

Be aware of GB he is a competitor and although no real direct threat, he can be very annoying and a conflict with GB is very possible (diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy). He usually have no reason to fear you for himself but make sure he knows that its not a one way street, you can make life as difficult for him and this is especially true if you are on friendly terms with Spain.

Even though it might not be obvious, diplomacy is the key for Russia. Your military options are limited, there just isnt enough minors around you to conquer, but you do have diplomatic options and usually a quite good bargaining position.

Remember that there is no patent strategy, the personality and agenda of the other players matters. This is especially true when playing Russia, Turkey or Spain due to there mutual relations and because so much comes down to GB and France.  

Someone wrote that this is not a game of diplomacy...the jihadist HanBarca in post #5. I think(know) that EiA is primarily diplomacy. As Clausewitz wrote: "Not all in war is military". Within the diplomatic realm of this game is that it reflects the interesting personality interplay such as it must have been during the Napoleonic era. Diplomacy and personalities can effect the game and its eventual victor as much as or more than the roll of the dice or the strategy undertaken. Most of you may never get the chance to have the pleasure of having 7+ players head to head...we have about 10 here in south Florida that are available to play at any start of a long campaign.

Strategy also depends on what campaign you are playing, so to compare apples with apples, lets assume that this "Russia tips" thread means the 1805 Grand Campaign.

I like the idea of a game that has naval parity rather than surrending control of the seas to Albion, so when I get the chance to organize an anti-naval alliance from the start before GB gets out of hand, I take it. It is unconventional and full of back-stabbing risks, so most might not be able to stomach this.

Most of our games begin like this: France vs GB by rule. Austria and Prussia stick tightly together, realizing that they have a chance if they fight together rather than seperate. This German alliance joins GB because of the common French threat. GB funds these allies. Spain allies with France...if Spain tries to stradle the fence between GB and France, there are consequences for Spain later. Besides, Spain would like to have some soak-off contribution under French leadership and moral. Turkey is heavily courted by France to keep Austria busy...the advantages for Turkey in a French alliance is that they can deal with a potential future enemy, and also contribute CAV+ to the big French stack which allows for a good potential for PP gain. A big key to a good EiA game is Russia...a ruthless and demanding Russia...but not stupid and careless. The only way for GB to fend off the French/Spanish/Turkish naval alliance is Russia. The question is...what is this worth to GB? GB could be invaded, surrender, lose naval battles and get real small real quick and no/little help to Prussia/Austria. If I'm playing Russia and the "Allies" want my help, then I want ALL of Scandinavia...Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. If I do not get ALL of this, then I for sure join the naval alliance vs GB. Now...I do not want France to get out of hand vis-a-vis Austria/Prussia...at the very least the naval war vs GB requires French money, manpower, and attention. The naval war can be over fairly quickly. Russia can move certain key corps and Kutusov into the mountain region in Austria on the Prussia border to be of future assitance if the French move on to the German capitols. If the Austrian/Prussian force is not devasted, the Russians by diplomacy alone can check the French advance with their presence and willingness to use that force in combination with the Germans. If the Germans do very well vs France, then Russia can threaten(probably Prussia) from the east, and also maybe Austria in combination with the Turks. Its hard to strategize further from there as allot depends on diplomacy and battle results.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Someone wrote that this is not a game of diplomacy...the jihadist HanBarca in post #5. I think(know) that EiA is primarily diplomacy. As Clausewitz wrote: "Not all in war is military". Within the diplomatic realm of this game is that it reflects the interesting personality interplay such as it must have been during the Napoleonic era. Diplomacy and personalities can effect the game and its eventual victor as much as or more than the roll of the dice or the strategy undertaken. Most of you may never get the chance to have the pleasure of having 7+ players head to head...we have about 10 here in south Florida that are available to play at any start of a long campaign.

Strategy also depends on what campaign you are playing, so to compare apples with apples, lets assume that this "Russia tips" thread means the 1805 Grand Campaign.

I like the idea of a game that has naval parity rather than surrending control of the seas to Albion, so when I get the chance to organize an anti-naval alliance from the start before GB gets out of hand, I take it. It is unconventional and full of back-stabbing risks, so most might not be able to stomach this.

Most of our games begin like this: France vs GB by rule. Austria and Prussia stick tightly together, realizing that they have a chance if they fight together rather than seperate. This German alliance joins GB because of the common French threat. GB funds these allies. Spain allies with France...if Spain tries to stradle the fence between GB and France, there are consequences for Spain later. Besides, Spain would like to have some soak-off contribution under French leadership and moral. Turkey is heavily courted by France to keep Austria busy...the advantages for Turkey in a French alliance is that they can deal with a potential future enemy, and also contribute CAV+ to the big French stack which allows for a good potential for PP gain. A big key to a good EiA game is Russia...a ruthless and demanding Russia...but not stupid and careless. The only way for GB to fend off the French/Spanish/Turkish naval alliance is Russia. The question is...what is this worth to GB? GB could be invaded, surrender, lose naval battles and get real small real quick and no/little help to Prussia/Austria. If I'm playing Russia and the "Allies" want my help, then I want ALL of Scandinavia...Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. If I do not get ALL of this, then I for sure join the naval alliance vs GB. Now...I do not want France to get out of hand vis-a-vis Austria/Prussia...at the very least the naval war vs GB requires French money, manpower, and attention. The naval war can be over fairly quickly. Russia can move certain key corps and Kutusov into the mountain region in Austria on the Prussia border to be of future assitance if the French move on to the German capitols. If the Austrian/Prussian force is not devasted, the Russians by diplomacy alone can check the French advance with their presence and willingness to use that force in combination with the Germans. If the Germans do very well vs France, then Russia can threaten(probably Prussia) from the east, and also maybe Austria in combination with the Turks. Its hard to strategize further from there as allot depends on diplomacy and battle results.

I think what you describe is the most common opening of a game with experienced players and I agree with your post except maybe about Spain in the sense that there are another way and that I find it very difficult at least in any of our games for France to manage to contain both Spain and Turkey as allies for any extended time.

In our previous game(1805 grand campaign) to the one we are playing now(1800 campaign), I was playing Turkey and had a very tight alliance with France. For some reason Spain allied itself to GB. That did not stop the French/Turkish jaugernaut. The game ended prematurely because Prussia and Austria were completely devastated, the Russian army was badly decimated with Le grande armee + Turkish horde on its Polish border. We were ready for a Russian campaign, after that Spain was next, with both campaigns going on all French, Turk, Venice, and Dutch fleets would be full even though earlier the French fleet was sunk(the French income was incredible)...GB would be next with no allies to assist it. Everyone knew what would happen and basically gave up.

I played Spain once(hated it), tried to be neutral concerning GB/France...eventually was forced into a GB alliance and had France/Le Grande Armee with Napy sitting in Spain for the rest of the game(last 3rd or so). I as France force Spain to decide at the outset...especially if I have Turkey as an ally. I prefer to play Russia in EiA because of all the political/military options. Russia is the key nation in EiA if played well...and probably the most fun.

I find Russia and to alot of peoples surprise Turkey to be my favourites.
 
I have seen Russia and Spain do quite well as a uncommited rock solid alliance in two games and although risky at least for Spain I beleive it's playable as long as your careful.
 
I do however think your right that GB never can be a long term solution for Spain. It will be hard to avoid France finding the time, sooner or later, to come knocking on your door - if you piss him off. And whenever/'as soon' as Spain loses its fleet Spain is no longer of any significant interest for either of them unless possibly as punching bag. With GB innitially you will have some economic advantages and possibly freedom to use your fleet to expand in Africa or Italy... but this is really the wrong thread to discuss Spain.      

Someone wrote that this is not a game of diplomacy...the jihadist HanBarca in post #5. I think(know) that EiA is primarily diplomacy. As Clausewitz wrote: "Not all in war is military".

Actually, I wrote that EiA is not "Diplomacy", referring to the old boardgame where you can ally with GB one turn and declare war to it the next....

diplomacy is of course a fundamental part of EiA, at the condition you don't play it like in "Diplomacy".

I like Turkey as well...last time I played it I won;-) The current game we are in(1800 campaign) Turkey is winning. We had one game that we refer back to as the "Project X game"(1792 campaign) in which Turkey defeated Russia, took Crimea, etc.., became dominant, and convinced Russia to join with it to terrorize the rest of Europe with Super-ov in command with tons of Turkish cav! I was Prussia that game[X(]. In that game Prussia and GB advanced to Paris in two seperate campaigns and twice the Russian threatened us to not take Paris...caused us to accept conditionals from France. After the second time I decided to join Russia and Turkey...the French were at the gates of Berlin with Brunswick holding off Napy three times...my new Russian ally taking his time getting there. The game ended when GB took St. Pete and moved deeper into Russia...after a diplomacy phase a mysterious Swedish corp appeared on the Finnish/Russian border, the Russian player could not account for it and "lost" his corp sheets. It was a great game...too bad it had to end that way.

Sorry...did not understand you. I agree with you. I have seen people play EiA like it was the Diplomacy game...very bad mistake!

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Someone wrote that this is not a game of diplomacy...the jihadist HanBarca in post #5. I think(know) that EiA is primarily diplomacy. As Clausewitz wrote: "Not all in war is military".

Actually, I wrote that EiA is not "Diplomacy", referring to the old boardgame where you can ally with GB one turn and declare war to it the next....

diplomacy is of course a fundamental part of EiA, at the condition you don't play it like in "Diplomacy".

One bit that a Russian player used to the board game should be aware of is that for the purposes of reinforcement, a player's supply chain does not have to be traced to the home nation (or minor free state, for free state factors).  French factors could be resupplied with a chain anchored at a ceded Prussian or Austrian province, for instance, or a convenient conquered minor; or Turkey-controlled Ottoman factors, from Besserabia.

ORIGINAL: Grognot

One bit that a Russian player used to the board game should be aware of is that for the purposes of reinforcement, a player's supply chain does not have to be traced to the home nation (or minor free state, for free state factors).  French factors could be resupplied with a chain anchored at a ceded Prussian or Austrian province, for instance, or a convenient conquered minor; or Turkey-controlled Ottoman factors, from Besserabia.

Correct.

For those who haven't run into it, though, this is NOT played consistently by the computer. There are some minors near France that do NOT act as supply correctly, but not all the time. It seems to depend on what other countries France owns at the time, gradually working itself to a state where it works everywhere, just as Grognot explained.

That kinda sucks. The greatest value I see in this computer game for me is to be able to play it with the board game...in other words, we can get together once a week for face to face play, and then during the week keep playing as much as we can to move the game along. If we can not play the reinforcement according to the rules, then we probably have stop the face to face play after reinforcements and play at most one month to the next reinforcement phase. Can you make adjustments to your corp/fleet factors manually?

I dont think you can it would be very easy to take advantage of in PBEM games, maybe it will be possible when an editor becomes available.