Matrix Games Forums

[font=georgia]eih] Re: depots

[/font][font="times new roman"]Major Power Depots:

Austria has "traditionally" had a large pool of depots - in the original EiA they were given 9 (more than anyone else). The reasoning for this is that historically Austria had a superb supply system, and often ended up paying the supply for the coalition armies.

Britain seems over-stocked - 7 should suffice, particularly with 3 for the New World.  

Ottomans should probably only have 6 depots, to represent their backward supply system.  

Spain, likewise, should be dropped to 6 depots - they're at best unmotivated.

The US, with their extreme military neglect should have 6 at the most, maybe only 5.

Some of the Kingdoms seem overstocked as well:  

Barbary Coast is another backward state - I suggest cutting them to only 1 depot.  

I'd cut the Mamlukes as well, but for their fleet - they should have the option of sea supply.

The Papal States is hardly a military power - remove their depot.  

Libya (which I'll further chastise in another e-mail) shouldn't have any either.  

Poland and Sweden seem to have too many depots - compare to the German Confederation - I suggest that they be reduced to 2.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.

ORIGINAL: bresh

Ehm, so reduce Austrias number of depots by more than 20% ?
I honestly cant see, how the new map should influense # depots.
Prussia and France are not reduced ? Its the same Map they use ?

Spain and Russia 12.5% reduced is bad enough.

I guess it costs 1 depot pr "new" minor, thats a pretty bad deal if i might say so. 
Or, nahh, cant be, Turkey is not reduced in depots, but has 1 minor.

Does EIH really drop all those depots for each MP, or was it the developmentteam ?
I dont have any eih-resources to check.

Regards
Bresh 

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.

Del is spot on here guys. If/When we do a classic scenario with the original map then I will adjust the depot numbers accordingly.

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In the counter mix of EiA, Austria has 9 depots. Some confusion comes from the setup of the 1805 campaign, in which Austria is allowed to place only 7 depots at the start, but also note that in Jan 1805 France can only start with 4 depots and Britain 2 (also Prussia 5, Russia 6, Spain and Turkey 2).

Marshall's point above is that, in EiA, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot that is within a 3 depot chain of the home country (or the minor power owning the reinforcements being placed). In EiANW, reinforcements may be placed in any corps that is on or adjacent to a depot within a 3 depot chain of any controlled territory of the major power including any of its conquered minors or free states. Hence it makes sense to reduce the number of depots.

Del is spot on here guys. If/When we do a classic scenario with the original map then I will adjust the depot numbers accordingly.

So in what ways, does Russia, Spain and Austria benefit more from the new map compared to other nations ? When the reinforcement part is a rule all nations follow.

Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: bresh

Ehm, so reduce Austrias number of depots by more than 20% ?
I honestly cant see, how the new map should influense # depots.
Prussia and France are not reduced ? Its the same Map they use ?

Spain and Russia 12.5% reduced is bad enough.

I guess it costs 1 depot pr "new" minor, thats a pretty bad deal if i might say so. 
Or, nahh, cant be, Turkey is not reduced in depots, but has 1 minor.

Does EIH really drop all those depots for each MP, or was it the developmentteam ?
I dont have any eih-resources to check.

Regards
Bresh 

The number of depots are the same as EiH3.0.

ORIGINAL: bresh

 
IF EIH 3.0 was so good and balanced, why did they head on and made new versions ?
From what i could tell from one EIH forum they appearently "re-introduced" 9 depots to Austria ?

EIH had the reputation about trying to be more historical, but then it sounds weird if they would reduce the most effective supply system around.(Austria's).

Sorry Marshall, but its your statements, you said and this was confusing to me.
. The reducement is due to the map, although the map is the same for all nations, so why the difference..
. Del, stated and you agreed it was cause of how reinforcement works in EIANW, but it works the same for all nations .. Russia,Austria & Spain dont differ from that.

So EIH 3.0 is to blame.

Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Empires in Harms was simply 1 groups (or 1 persons) idea of a mod. The only difference is that the mod got published and now, somehow, that guy got his horrible, horrible hands on this game. How?? I HAVE NO IDEA.

Mods are just that: mods. EiH was NOT playtested thoroughly for game balance and still has not been. They make new versions simply to "mod" some more. Modders love to mod and that's what they do, which is great for them but they should have never been allowed to get their hands on this game.

Modding for this game should have taken place in 1 way and 1 way only: EDITOR. This game should have been Empires in Arms (er, like the title that Matrix so snakingly gave it). The EDITOR should have let the mods have at this game. This game should not have been a "mod" from the start.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I hear your beef, Neverman and I understand. If I had to go back and do this again then I would do the classic first no doubt. Much of what I thought would be great actually sucked and much of what I hated turned out great LOL! I simply picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue! :-0

There are others like you and this is the reason that we will probably do the classic scenario.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: bresh

 
IF EIH 3.0 was so good and balanced, why did they head on and made new versions ?
From what i could tell from one EIH forum they appearently "re-introduced" 9 depots to Austria ?

EIH had the reputation about trying to be more historical, but then it sounds weird if they would reduce the most effective supply system around.(Austria's).

Sorry Marshall, but its your statements, you said and this was confusing to me.
. The reducement is due to the map, although the map is the same for all nations, so why the difference..
. Del, stated and you agreed it was cause of how reinforcement works in EIANW, but it works the same for all nations .. Russia,Austria & Spain dont differ from that.

So EIH 3.0 is to blame.

Regards
Bresh

They went on because nothing is perfect and there is ALWAYS room to improve BUT at the time of our initial design for the "Napoleonic Wars" (Original Game) we had spoken with Michael Treasure (Creator/Moder of EiH) and had agreed to use EiH3.0 which was the current version back then. I really spent little time evaluating the number of depots but the testers did mention that we should use the same number of depots as was in EiH3.0 due to the fact that if you give more then supply chains might allow people to invade MPs that might otherwise not be possible with fewer depots.