Pre January 1805 reinforcements

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hi folks,
I feel that there should be away to implement pre January 1805 reinforcements, I mean that each country would have a defense budget program already in place prior to the game start date, October,November & December 1804 ?

So that there should be units waiting to come on stream as reinforcements for January & February 1805.

As per the following examples =

France = 4 Infantry, 2 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Russia = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Britain = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 2 Heavy + 2 Light
Spain = 1 Infantry, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Prussia = 2 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Austria = 1 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Turkey = 1 Infantry

Note the above are just examples, so do any other gamers feel that this should be taken into account ?

[pzgndr]

A pre-game economic phase would be a nice option.  Some others have tried this in the boardgame and have suggested this here.  Marshall indicated some difficulties with trying to make that happen, but just the same it would be a nice option down the road if it could be implemented.

[Dancing Bear]

I'm not sure if this is a big deal, and maybe the game designers incorporated this into the initial force setups.

[easterner]

I'm a big fan of Dec 1804 production and have used since 1st game of boardgame. I do not like waiting nearly 6 mos for reinforcements, Fr & Brits were at war since 1802.

I indeed mentioned this after v1.00

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

waiting for reinforcements is wrong, they should appear every month without exception, as easterner said France & Great Britain were at war for long periods off time during this period in history, and as such had extensive budgets in place for military growth, I think this is a major issue that needs addressing?

[Dancing Bear]

Maybe you could do this, but you probably reduce the starting strengths of the armies to keep the game balanced like the designers were thinking.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hi Dancing Bear,
                        I was thinking about a way to implement this PRE - JANUARY REINFORCEMENT effect, I don't know if Marshall could maybe add them to the counter pool, then add them in the same way that leaders start in a delayed fashion ?
 
                 It works for LEADERS I see no reason why other counters like Infantry etc cannot work in they same way!![:)]

[iamspamus]

I continue to parrot the notion that you want a different game, HFJ. (Which is not a bad thing.)

This was done in the 1792-1815 scenario. You can then have all of 11 years to start early. [:D]

The basic premise is that at the time they started the war, no one was ready. Thus no militia. Nothing in the pipeline, etc. I am not against this as an option, but otherwise having played a few games, I don't see the need. Just like other issues you have, you just learn to play within the game.

RE: getting troops each month. No. Again, this is a mechanic done on purpose. Even in WWI or WWII after the rise of nationalism and mass armies, you didn't necessarily get troops by snapping your finger. They take time. The 1 month mil, 3 mo inf, 5 mo cav, 6 mo art/gd works to simulate that. I don't think that anything's broken here, so nothing would need to be fixed. You can bend the game so far. At a certain point, it's no longer the same game.

I mean, if you want a more accurate system, then you would need hexes with printed roads rather than spaces. I'm not suggesting this, but maybe you need to design something like that with all of the things that you want.

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi folks,
I feel that there should be away to implement pre January 1805 reinforcements, I mean that each country would have a defense budget program already in place prior to the game start date, October,November & December 1804 ?

So that there should be units waiting to come on stream as reinforcements for January & February 1805.

As per the following examples =

France = 4 Infantry, 2 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Russia = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Britain = 2 Infantry, 1 Calvary, 2 Heavy + 2 Light
Spain = 1 Infantry, 1 Heavy + 1 Light
Prussia = 2 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Austria = 1 Infantry + 1 Calvary
Turkey = 1 Infantry

Note the above are just examples, so do any other gamers feel that this should be taken into account ?

[easterner]

iamspamus the basic premise is that at the time they started the war, no one was ready.

Uh... what part of Fr & Brit at war already 3 years was unclear? The wars started in 1793. Nations dropped in and out, even switched sides multi-times from 1793-1815. England was at war from 2/93 to 6/15 with peace pauses only in 1802 (Peace of Amiens) and 1814 (Elba exile) but was at war with US still in 1814. 22 years of near continuous war, I doubt greatly anyone was unprepared in 1805. Your statement would be accurate only if Fr/Eng not at war option is chosen.

My solution in Board Game was each nation produced 12/04 based on their printed rating only. No minors, no trade, no lending. Anything not used was lost so no $$$$ or manpower carried over to '05. So game started unchanged but Jan '05 had some militia, March some Inf, May some Cav. Worked everytime used, none of 7 players ever objected.

[Jimmer]

I disagree strongly with the contention that not having troops show up is "wrong" somehow. Every power receives many times the per-turn incomes worth of troops, and they get to place them before January on top of that. Perhaps you could take some troops out of your pre-game allotment, and then put them on the map in March, May, or June (as appropriate).

Don't like that idea? Then you are modifying the game, and upsetting the balance of power.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hi Jimmer,
Ok! as easterner said Britain was almost always at war from 1792, she had massive investment in military terms, on going straight through the Napoleonic wars. Now I will speak from the naval point of view, Britains naval ship building could not cope with the demand for more ships, she had to use Merchant ship building yards to fill the naval build orders, so Britain had ships joining the fleet every month, not every 2 months or 3 months every month!

[Jimmer]

Perhaps. However, you are still changing the balance of the game with such an option. For example, playing GB, the first thing I buy is a guard factor and some cavalry. Your solution would allow me to have them show up earlier than the game would otherwise allow. This would in turn allow GB to be MUCH more aggressive with the minors than she usually can afford.
 
I think you would be better off removing the troops from your initial allotment, and placing them at the right time for the troop. Unfortunately, that means doing some serious math in order to figure out the right percentages to use.

[iamspamus]

Baloney. England paid a lot of other guys to fight. They were "fighting" in Portugal/Spain in 1809 (four years after the start of the game) with the equivalent of 3 corps (I'm being generous here). So, nah, don't think so.

On your last part. So? Eia has it that you could have ships built every three months. Easy. I don't see the problem. Build a set each econ phase and viola, you have some coming in each three months. In fact, build lights and heavies and you have them coming in two of three months. Don't see the problem.

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Hi Jimmer,
Ok! as easterner said Britain was almost always at war from 1792, she had massive investment in military terms, on going straight through the Napoleonic wars. Now I will speak from the naval point of view, Britains naval ship building could not cope with the demand for more ships, she had to use Merchant ship building yards to fill the naval build orders, so Britain had ships joining the fleet every month, not every 2 months or 3 months every month!

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Ok Guys,
I'm giving up on this game for now, I will wait and see what version 1.06 and the editor brings to the table, so maybe I can alter it to please me! After all that is why I buy games to please me.

I spend the money, to enjoy the experience off game play, and at the moment this one is not ticking all my boxes, so I have turned my attention to Crown of glory, World War 1 & War In The Pacific they have far more in depth detail and they do tick my boxes, so have fun with this diplomatic abstract combat fantasy game which is based loosely on the Napoleonic era.

There has to be options for the player to alter the game to suit him or her, I'm happy to play against the AI for I know it will improve over time, so I wish you all well for now, I will pop in now and again to read the posts, and see how Marshall is improving the game, I do like the game but it's not realistic enough for me at the moment.

While I'm here I will say this to all the players who have been playing this game for years, I'm quite sure that the original game designers, would have liked to upgrade the rules and game play over the years, Rules are guide lines, and are often interpreted differently by players, also they are not written in stone or blood, and to my knowledge were not the 11th commandment, thou shalt not alter Empire In Arms rules!

People used to think the world was flat and boy were they wrong, so I rest my case please have an open mind and help Marshall with this game it has the potential to be fantastic.[:)]

[iamspamus]

Uh...Are you really going there? So, why was there NO ACTION AT ALL until August 1805? Hmmm? Between 1802 and August 1805 what happened? NADA. Just because someone's at war DOESN'T mean that they are ready to fight. Look at your the allies in WWII.

War reumed in mid-1803. Oops. Nothing happened that year. Napoleon crowned himself in Dec 1804. Nothing happened up til that time.

In early 1805 Nap moved to the coast of England. In mid-1805 (Julyish) the French Navy went on an expedition to distract the British navy allowing a French invasion of Britain. Still no land action.

Nap then sat there until August, when the Austrians began to marshall. Nap moved on the Austrians setting up the battle of Ulm. So, nice try, but if you build up your militia in JUNE 1805, then you can have them ready for the beginning of combat (you know, when the fighting actually started) one month early in July. What do you think that Jan-June timeframe is??? It is the setup for the starting of conflict. (Also, it was easier in game terms to make it 11 full years AND it was the month after Napoleon crowned himself.)

Therefore, I stand by my assessment that NEITHER side was ready in Dec 1804. Just because players jump out to get minors in the game, doesn't mean we need to push the start back one econ phase. If you fight in the winter of 1805 (Jan-Feb) with no militia and on reinf, then you'll have to suck it up.

As I stated before, I don't mind it as an option. But I don't think it's needed. (Sorry about my tone. I was responding in kind.)

ORIGINAL: easterner

iamspamus the basic premise is that at the time they started the war, no one was ready.

Uh... what part of Fr & Brit at war already 3 years was unclear? The wars started in 1793. Nations dropped in and out, even switched sides multi-times from 1793-1815. England was at war from 2/93 to 6/15 with peace pauses only in 1802 (Peace of Amiens) and 1814 (Elba exile) but was at war with US still in 1814. 22 years of near continuous war, I doubt greatly anyone was unprepared in 1805. Your statement would be accurate only if Fr/Eng not at war option is chosen.

My solution in Board Game was each nation produced 12/04 based on their printed rating only. No minors, no trade, no lending. Anything not used was lost so no $$$$ or manpower carried over to '05. So game started unchanged but Jan '05 had some militia, March some Inf, May some Cav. Worked everytime used, none of 7 players ever objected.

[iamspamus]

In an argument you have to be able to at least hear other sides, even if you don't agree with them.

I don't want you to give up. I'm sorry, if I ran you off. I don't mean to. There is a difference in some changes to a game and radically redesigning the game to the point where it is not the same game. This is a loosely [:D] adapted version of EIA/EIH. There are some core ideas for the game that can't change. These include the order of play (ie. Eng/Fra get to choose when they go), the econ phase, the corps structure, reinf, etc.

If you made it where you could get reinf every turn and have 37 kinds of ships with a hex map, then you are not playing EIA. That's why I said I think that you want to design a different game. Not saying that you can't like this too. I have several Napoleonic (board) games and like them all. They all do something different. EIA is a grand strategic game. Similar to the strategic map on Total War. Other games, including miniatures, focuses more on tactical level. That's why I suggested that you might try to find wooden ships and iron men.

Now don't get me wrong. I love add-ons to a game, chrome, historical flavor. Whatever. but it has to balance history with playability. I'm sure we've all played those games that were tactically brill, but boring as heck to play. That's what I'd like to avoid. So, some changes will fly, some should be options, and some (especially those that change the fundamentals of the game) should be avoided...in my opinion.

Hope to see you around.

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

Ok Guys,
I'm giving up on this game for now, I will wait and see what version 1.06 and the editor brings to the table, so maybe I can alter it to please me! After all that is why I buy games to please me.

I spend the money, to enjoy the experience off game play, and at the moment this one is not ticking all my boxes, so I have turned my attention to Crown of glory, World War 1 & War In The Pacific they have far more in depth detail and they do tick my boxes, so have fun with this diplomatic abstract combat fantasy game which is based loosely on the Napoleonic era.

There has to be options for the player to alter the game to suit him or her, I'm happy to play against the AI for I know it will improve over time, so I wish you all well for now, I will pop in now and again to read the posts, and see how Marshall is improving the game, I do like the game but it's not realistic enough for me at the moment.

While I'm here I will say this to all the players who have been playing this game for years, I'm quite sure that the original game designers, would have liked to upgrade the rules and game play over the years, Rules are guide lines, and are often interpreted differently by players, also they are not written in stone or blood, and to my knowledge were not the 11th commandment, thou shalt not alter Empire In Arms rules!

People used to think the world was flat and boy were they wrong, so I rest my case please have an open mind and help Marshall with this game it has the potential to be fantastic.[:)]

[pzgndr]

Don't like that idea? Then you are modifying the game, and upsetting the balance of power.

This really does not advance the discussion about an option for a pre-game economic phase. The whole balance of power issue is debatable, since the bidding process supposedly makes every game "perfectly" balanced regardless of whatever the base game setup is all about. Whatever. Whether this option would be good or bad for the 1805 campaign game is up to the players. I would argue that in the other later scenarios where MPs have in fact been at war for some period, that a pre-game economic phase makes more sense and should be considered. As an option. The idea where each nation would produce based on their printed rating only (no minors, no trade, no lending) appears perfectly reasonable.

[iamspamus]

As I said, if you want it as an optional: by all means go for it. It shouldn't be that hard to code. However, if I am to get a snide attempt at a poor history lesson explaining why FOR SURE this should be the case, well, then I'll work to set it straight...in my opinion.

As I stated, I could care less if it's an optional. I may even use it. But, please, don't try to sell me on why it's "necessary" or "correct" or whatever. No rancor intended.

This per se was not the "balance of power" issue, but HFJ's desire to change virtually everything about the game. That was more what I was talking about regarding game balance and modifying the game. Optionals, chrome, etc. those are fine. I would caveat it with, they are fine as long as they don't make too much work or affect playability.

Finally, I'd say that your suggestion for a pre-game pseudo-buy ahead is not a good way to do it. My suggestion, if this was an optional is just to do an econ phase ahead. No new mechanic. Just the system.

Just my $.02.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Don't like that idea? Then you are modifying the game, and upsetting the balance of power.

This really does not advance the discussion about an option for a pre-game economic phase. The whole balance of power issue is debatable, since the bidding process supposedly makes every game "perfectly" balanced regardless of whatever the base game setup is all about. Whatever. Whether this option would be good or bad for the 1805 campaign game is up to the players. I would argue that in the other later scenarios where MPs have in fact been at war for some period, that a pre-game economic phase makes more sense and should be considered. As an option. The idea where each nation would produce based on their printed rating only (no minors, no trade, no lending) appears perfectly reasonable.

[MarshallEllis]

An easier way to do this would be to maybe start the scenario in December 1804. This would autotrigger an eco phase.
 

[pzgndr]

This per se was not the "balance of power" issue, but HFJ's desire to change virtually everything about the game... Optionals, chrome, etc. those are fine.

I agree. I'm not sure if HFJ was actually proposing to change the core game rather than suggest an option. The core game should be classic EiA rules by default except where Marshall simply cannot implement all of the interactive actions and such, and all other deviations should be game options. This should be generally understood by everyone.

An easier way to do this would be to maybe start the scenario in December 1804. This would autotrigger an eco phase.

Could you get the game to start at just the economic phase? With the Editor we should be able to easily change the start date ourselves but this would include all of the other December 1804 phases and that may not be desired. A game option to start at the previous economic phase would be preferable?