Setup Changes -- Naval only

[Jimmer]

Both the French and British forces are not set up very well at the beginning of the game. The French start with all their ships in one port. The British don't even start in blockading positions.

The two attached files that start with "AI" are replacement setup files for the French and British AI starting positions. The British start file also includes movement of some infantry (no more guarding his ports unless they have strategic value). No attempt was made to change the default French corps/garrison strengths, although this would be wise.

The British start file expects that the French start file is the one in use. It would not be fair to the AI to use the British one while the French changed theirs, as the British could end up blockading empty ports.

I've also included copies of the original files. Nobody should need these, but, in case you forget to make a copy of yours before you start, they're here.

Steps:

1) Drill down the the Setups folder
2) Make duplicates of the AIGr... and AIFr... files. Alternately, you can change the names.
3) Copy the two files from this ZIP file that start with AI into the setups folder (overwrite the ones that are there if you didn't change names).
4) Start a game.

If you want to use the same setup for your own use, while playing either nation, you will have to open it manually. However, the files that start with AI do not show up in the list of available files. Just type "AI" in the Open field, and it will show you the list of available files. I think this is a safety feature, to keep you from inadvertently deleting or modifying one of them.

The strengths are not optimized for France (hey, I don't give away ALL of my secrets ). However, the British fleets ARE optimized against the default French AI setup. The British fleets all have at least 8-to-1 advantages in the blockade combat, should France try to leave port. The French fleets are PARTLY optimized, though: Each heavy fleet's strength (except Holland's) is a multiple of 3 factors. This forces the British to use the maximum number of heavy ships in order to prevent the French from getting the +1 for having 50% more heavy ships present.

[delatbabel]

Thanks for this Jimmer, I'm actually going to add this to Mantis as a change request to have this setup done as the standard. The current GB/FR naval dispositions are badly borked.

[Jimmer]

Sounds good. Any chance that we can see "alternative startups" as a possibility for the AI? I mean, something like startup positions 1 through 10 or something like that. They would be matched sets navally, but other positions could change.
 
One thing about the setup: If  you make it the default, do something about the covering infantry in each of the ports. Currently, there is only one factor in each port, which is way too small. I would put a corps counter in each port, and fill that corps with a number of troops equal to what can be carried on one or the other fleet (the heavy or the light -- the transports aren't going anywhere). For example, have the corps in Brest have either 12i or 4i (12 for the 12H heavy fleet or 4 for the 8L light fleet).
 
If you want, I can correct this as well.
 
There's one other thing that could be done: Position the French forces better. They are in mediocre positions in the default land setup (which is what I used here). They need to do some thing like put a corps in Hannover, etc. When I post the new ones for the above (assuming you say yes), I'll post several French ones that you can choose amongst.

[delatbabel]

If you can correct the corps dispositions that'd be great. I think I would like the ability for the AI to place its forces more intelligently in the setup phase, rather than picking from a fixed setup, but realistically that's probably not going to happen for a few releases yet.

[Jimmer]

OK, this file is just the French file. It puts corps and factors into each port. Just so one can remember them, the corps strengths are exactly what the heavy corps can carry.

NOTE: Other players might want to put some cavalry into them (replace 2i with 1c). However, if GB blockades with the forces I put into the GB setup file, it will be a long time before the French ever get to use them.

[Jimmer]

This didn't work. The AI is too stupid to leave the British ships blockading. It moves them all into a huge stack North of Amsterdam (or, Portugal, I would guess, if the Spanish declare war there).
 
Marshall, this would be a good AI thing to fix. I've seen it in other places, too, but it happens later in the game. Something "scares" GB, and she pulls all her ships into one big stack. Now, that wouldn't be so bad, because there ARE things that can be done. However, to do it when moving first is disastrous. And, GB never changes her naval move order on the first turn of the game (oops).

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

OK, this file is just the French file. It puts corps and factors into each port. Just so one can remember them, the corps strengths are exactly what the heavy corps can carry.

NOTE: Other players might want to put some cavalry into them (replace 2i with 1c). However, if GB blockades with the forces I put into the GB setup file, it will be a long time before the French ever get to use them.

Problem with your set-up...

The AI never puts the Corp into garrison. Thus the French ships are completely vulnerable to being attacked in port with no help from the port Guns. There needs to be a Corp AND at least 1 factor in garrison.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

This didn't work. The AI is too stupid to leave the British ships blockading. It moves them all into a huge stack North of Amsterdam (or, Portugal, I would guess, if the Spanish declare war there).

Marshall, this would be a good AI thing to fix. I've seen it in other places, too, but it happens later in the game. Something "scares" GB, and she pulls all her ships into one big stack. Now, that wouldn't be so bad, because there ARE things that can be done. However, to do it when moving first is disastrous. And, GB never changes her naval move order on the first turn of the game (oops).

In mantis as issue 17 (this has been around for a while). Marked as a high priority fix for 1.04 so should be out in the next-release-but-one.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Tater

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

OK, this file is just the French file. It puts corps and factors into each port. Just so one can remember them, the corps strengths are exactly what the heavy corps can carry.

NOTE: Other players might want to put some cavalry into them (replace 2i with 1c). However, if GB blockades with the forces I put into the GB setup file, it will be a long time before the French ever get to use them.

Problem with your set-up...

The AI never puts the Corp into garrison. Thus the French ships are completely vulnerable to being attacked in port with no help from the port Guns. There needs to be a Corp AND at least 1 factor in garrison.

That's a bug. Factors in an area control both the port (city) and the rural area. Please report it on the bug tracker.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
That's a bug. Factors in an area control both the port (city) and the rural area. Please report it on the bug tracker.

No it's not. There has to be a garrison in a city for the port guns to fire. The rules (both sets) explicity state so. Even if you're playing with the relatively flexible interpretation above, there was a rules clarification from ADG a while back stating that a corps that was in a city area but could not fit into the city (because it was too big) could not fire the guns.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
That's a bug. Factors in an area control both the port (city) and the rural area. Please report it on the bug tracker.

No it's not. There has to be a garrison in a city for the port guns to fire. The rules (both sets) explicity state so. Even if you're playing with the relatively flexible interpretation above, there was a rules clarification from ADG a while back stating that a corps that was in a city area but could not fit into the city (because it was too big) could not fire the guns.

Well there is a rule deviration between EIA and EIANW here.
I agree a corps in rual area does not allow use of port cannons.
Although one problem a corps placed into a habor city as the only garrison, does not in EIANW allow the use of habor guns, think it is on page 101 in the EIANW manual.
13.5.3 Using The Harbor Defenses
The major power that controls a port city (indicated in Selection Area Info window) and has a garrison there, determines use of the harbor defenses, regardless of the major power formally controlling the province or minor country in which the city is located. Port cities without garrisons may not use their harbor defenses (NOTE: The program does not allow corps to determine use of the harbor defenses).

Persoanally i think this should be on the fix list, this can make some unwanted impact.

Kind Regards
Bresh

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: bresh
Well there is a rule deviration between EIA and EIANW here.
I agree a corps in rual area does not allow use of port cannons.
Although one problem a corps placed into a habor city as the only garrison, does not in EIANW allow the use of habor guns, think it is on page 101 in the EIANW manual.
13.5.3 Using The Harbor Defenses
The major power that controls a port city (indicated in Selection Area Info window) and has a garrison there, determines use of the harbor defenses, regardless of the major power formally controlling the province or minor country in which the city is located. Port cities without garrisons may not use their harbor defenses (NOTE: The program does not allow corps to determine use of the harbor defenses).

Persoanally i think this should be on the fix list, this can make some unwanted impact.

Kind Regards
Bresh

Hi Bresh,

Well there's been a long-running debate in the EiA community as to whether (in EiA) a corps can fire the guns. Quotes from the rules below:

6.3.3.3 NAVAL COMBAT IN A PORT: ... There must be a garrison in the port city that is at war with or denied access to (see 6.3.1.3 for these situations) an entering stack in order to use the harbor defences.

7.3.3.3.2: Corps may form all or part of a city garrison without detaching army factors, so that any types of army factors in such corps could also be a garrison.

Some people think that 6.3.3.3 stands alone and therefore corps cannot fire guns (their troops are ordered for field combat, not standing around in the port manning cannons -- furthermore in period it was almost always NAVAL garrisons that manned port guns).

Some people think that 7.3.3.3.2 is sufficient to say that if a corps is stated as being "in" a city, the corps can fire guns.

Most gaming groups make a house rule one way or the other and apply that for the game. In all of those cases it's agreed that a corps that can't enter the city can't fire the guns.

Without wanting to enter into the 10+ year long flamewar that's surrounded this issue, I suspect that EiH made the rule more clear to say you must detach a garrison factor, and that EiANW has followed this rule change.

It's been well established that the EiA rules as written don't clearly define whether a corps is in the city or not. The problem this creates is when there is a naval invasion and a port combat in the same turn. If the corps is outside the city then it fights a field battle, and gets the bonus of using the river combat tables but clearly can't fire the guns; if the corps is in the city then the naval invasion is unopposed and there is a siege/break-in roll/assault combat, but the corps clearly can fire the guns.

I suspect that what Matrix have done is to clear this up by deliberately making the decision to place a corps in or out of the city, which solves the issue of shore battle vs siege battle. Whether there needs to be a garrison factor detached for the port guns to be fired is a matter for further debate entirely but I wouldn't class it as a "bug" provided everyone knows that, yes, you must detach a garrison to fire the guns and that is the way the software implements the (rather ambiguously written) game rule.

[Jimmer]

Well, I consider myself corrected: It's not a bug. In addition to what you wrote, delatbabel, I noted that rule:

10.3.2.2: If there is no garrison, the city is controlled by major power or neutral minor country which controls the territory in which the city is located-port cities without garrisons may not use their harbour defences.

clearly states that rural forces cannot fire harbor guns. This is in the larger section describing who controls a city (including ports) for combat purposes. The other two sections say this:

10.3.2 CITY OCCUPATION: The nationality of a city garrison determines who controls the city for combat purposes, regardless of the major power formally controlling the province or minor country in which the city is located. For example, a Russian garrison in a French port city allows the Russian player to determine if the port's harbour defences are used against attacking fleets.

10.3.2.1: If a city has a garrison consisting of army factors from more than one major power, control is with the major power formally controlling the province or minor country. If no army factors of the major power formally controlling the province are present, control for combat purposes can be decided by mutual agreement among the players with army factors present or, if agreement is impossible, by competitive die rolls with no modifiers. If garrisons in the same city suddenly find themselves at war due to a declaration of war, _immediately_ determine city control by trivial combat between the hostile garrison forces.

Following their train of thought here makes it very clear that 10.3.2.2 is not an abberation.

Also, I would like to point out that the people arguing for garrisons being loose factors only are wrong. 7.3.3.3.2 applies, because 6.3.3.3 does not exclude corps. It merely uses the word "garrison", which can be either loose factors OR corps. However, I can see their argument that section 6 is about naval actions (port combats) and section 7 is about land actions.

BUT, if we can find an example that is not part of either naval or land rules exclusively, the rule would be less ambiguous. I found one such example (corps counting as "garrison factors") in 10.3.3:

10.3.3 NEUTRAL GARRISONS IN ENEMY TERRITORY: Neutral garrisons or portions of garrisons (army factors belonging to a major power not at war with any of the besieging corps) in a city belonging to an enemy of a besieging corps must surrender as soon as a siege of the city is announced. These surrendered army factors and corps are automatically "exchanged" and automatically returned to the map as reinforcements during the surrendered forces next Army Reinforcement Step. [red letters added for emphasis]

The word "garrisons" is used in the first sentence. The second sentence, speaking of exactly the same factors, specifically uses the word "corps". They wanted to be clear that these "garrisons (army factors belonging to ...)" -- from the first sentence -- could include corps.

[delatbabel]

There is also a glossary entry which specifically defines garrisons to include corps.

However the debate rages on and I can see the point of people who argue that a corps must detach an actual garrison factor into a city in order to fire the guns. The main justification being a historical one -- "army" units in most cases did NOT fire port guns, they didn't have the experience or the training. There were "artillery" units which could and did do that, and in the most cases the navy (e.g. the Admiralty in the case of Britain) were responsible for providing the manpower to man the port guns, as well as the guns themselves and the ammunition, etc.

The main rules-based justification I can see for arguing that there must be a separate garrison factor for port gunfire to occur is the dividing line between when a corps is inside or outside of a city. If a player, at the start of his turn, points to a corps on the map and says "that corps is in the city" then I have no problems with that corps firing the port guns. That corps cannot also fight a field battle in that turn unless it uses its movement to move out of the city. However if a player, when asked whether his corps is in the city or outside of the city, wants to vacillate on the issue, and the same corps tries to both defend a naval invasion and fire the guns in the same turn, then I'll be asking questions (for example: "well that corps fired the port guns on my attacking ships, so I'll just roll a random number to determine how many factors were in the city doing that and therefore can't fight this battle, shall I?"). I'm happy to see EiANW come down on the side of deciding that a corps must be in or out of the city and not in both places at once.

[AresMars]

IMHO, CORPS could be in Garrison of a CITY, but only detached units (INF or MIL Factors) could man the guns of a Port.

If you had a CORPS manning the guns, and the CORPS had to leave, it would destroy the normal integrity of the Corps to have to wait for the detachment to rejoin the Corps.

I like the idea that ONLY detached factors can affect the guns and CORPS cannot....though, both would be considered a Garrison of a City.


[Edited my bad englirsh]

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
The main rules-based justification I can see for arguing that there must be a separate garrison factor for port gunfire to occur is the dividing line between when a corps is inside or outside of a city. If a player, at the start of his turn, points to a corps on the map and says "that corps is in the city" then I have no problems with that corps firing the port guns. That corps cannot also fight a field battle in that turn unless it uses its movement to move out of the city. However if a player, when asked whether his corps is in the city or outside of the city, wants to vacillate on the issue, and the same corps tries to both defend a naval invasion and fire the guns in the same turn, then I'll be asking questions (for example: "well that corps fired the port guns on my attacking ships, so I'll just roll a random number to determine how many factors were in the city doing that and therefore can't fight this battle, shall I?"). I'm happy to see EiANW come down on the side of deciding that a corps must be in or out of the city and not in both places at once.

Well, IMO the rules are very clear: Either a corps or a factor (or both) can be in the city and fire the guns. As I pointed out, the rule from section 10 makes it extremely clear that that's what the designers intended. I don't have access to the glossary, but as I recall, it made the same point.

I further agree on the "in city" vs. "out of city" thing: It's clear that a force must be declared as "in" or "out" in the previous land phase, not during naval movement/combat. Playing on a paper map could make this seem ambiguous, and the original authors could have written the rules more succinctly, but there really isn't any debate (despite my having played the wrong way for decades -- I was wrong).

I suspect what most players would want to do, knowing these rules, is to have the corps reside in the rural area, but drop a factor (or more) into the city, thus covering both cases.

One question remains in my mind: Can you, in EiA, change positions during your reinforcement phase? One certainly can detach or factors, but, can the corps change from "in city" to "out of city" or vice-versa?

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
I suspect what most players would want to do, knowing these rules, is to have the corps reside in the rural area, but drop a factor (or more) into the city, thus covering both cases.

Clearly this is what they should do, however I don't believe that the EiA rules, as written, enforce this.

One question remains in my mind: Can you, in EiA, change positions during your reinforcement phase? One certainly can detach or factors, but, can the corps change from "in city" to "out of city" or vice-versa?

Yes you can change positions during your reinforcement phase. Note that it's clear you can't change positions during your naval phase, and especially not during someone else's naval phase.