Generals

[fjbn]

[font="Times New Roman"][/font]
I would like to know how many generals there will be in the game. I mean. In the board game, countries like Austria had only a few generals, and generals like schwartzenberg were clearly underrated. The reason was obvious for me, because if you join Charles and Schwartzenberg rightly rated, austria would have very good generals and the game would be unbalanced.
Maybe the solution would be more generals with retreat date. I mean, Charles and John would desappear in 1810, and other generals would appear.

It´s just a suggestion, and sorry for my bad English[:)]

[Nordiska]

I always thought Spain, Turkey and Sweden (using the optional 8th player rules) had the worst generals and the fewest to choose from. I believe EIH had some different generals. I haven't played this game in a few years so the difference in the two games is begining fade[&:]

[Rafel]

Pos yo macho t'entendido de p. m., baigorri no escribes tan mal. [:D][:D]

Please, write in english, thk [:-]

It's true, the "minors" majors have a great gap in the number of generals in front the other majors, but I think this is just to balance the game. I'm sure that we can find a lot of good generals from turkey, spain o sweden in that years.

I don't also understand why Spain and Turkey have their cavalry with less morale than other majors cavalry, if we have in mind the reform of spanish army at the ends of previous century, and afters in 1802-1804, I don't know why are the spanish cavalry with 3 moral.

[NeverMan]

I think that the "minor" majors did have less qualified Generals, which is why they are rated less. ADG (Rowland) chose to use a 6 point scale for the Generals attributes, so it's hard to distinguish between a good general and a great general and maybe a "General of the Era", if you get my meaning.

The deal with Turkey's fueds having low morale is that they are like militia.

The deal with Spain's morale is the fact that their army was broken a lot.

The deal with GBs morale is the opposite of Spain's.

I mean Charles was better than Scwartzenberg, IMO. And Nap was better than Charles.

Some generals did well with a few corps and others could command great armies.

BTW: Did everyone play with the "overload general corp strength" rule (don't know the official rule name). Example: If Nap had 12 corp under him, his tactical (I think it was tactical, that makes more sense to me right now) would go down by 1, or did you not play with this option?

[donkuchi19]

I always used the overload general rule. If I could mass 12 corps with Napoleon, nothing would stop it.

[ktotwf]

In EiA, about how many soldiers are in each corps? The numbers during the period were not uniform, corps ranged from about 20,000 to 60,000.

[fjbn]

I have always used the overload option. I think that in Empires in Harm this option wasn´t allowed. I mean, you can carry only the corp that the sume of your generals allows you to. So, if you want that Napoleon carry 12 corps, you should have other generals with him, like Murat and Massena. Napoleon will take the lead and his tactical rating will be 4, but it doesn´t matter, because you go with more than 150 factors.[:D]

[ardilla]

I think, I dont remember where, I read that each point in a corp is about 1500-2000 men.

And each naval point in a fleet stands for one ship of the line (66 guns and up)

Plez, someone correct me if I am wrong or agree??


Thanks

[NeverMan]

each Inf factor I think is 2500
each Cav is 1500
each Gaurd and Art is 1000

[John Umber]

Depending on which country you are checking.
It is different values for different countries. This to reflect training etc...

[donkuchi19]

I think in the original rulebook, it says that each factor is about 1,500 - 2,000 men. And each ship factor is 1 ship-of-the-line or an equivelent number of smaller ships.

[ktotwf]

So, how big of a factor is a general? Because an army with Napoleon at the head should almost be invincible unless outnumbered at least 2-1.

[fjbn]

I agree with you that powers like Spain or Turkey had worse generals that, for example, France, but the fact is that if you lose one of your generals your army will suffer the lack of generals, including horrible generals like John and his 1-1-2. If Castaños is captured, Spain has nothing to face the enemy. I think is better to have more generals, including some bad generals. In fact, some variants of EiA allows you to buid new generals.

More important, in that kind of variants you can carry only the sume of your two best generals. I mean, if you go with Nappy and Massena, you can carry 9 corps, notr more, and your tactical is reduced to 4. [;)]

[NeverMan]

1st: Generals play a big role, but there are also many other factors that France has to keep it winning, Artillary, Huge Gaurd Corps(lots of 5.0 morale), Lots of Cav Capacity, and oh yeah, that 4.0 Inf Morale Benefit [:D]

2nd: I can see your point fjbn, the only thing I can say from my experience playing those countries in EiA is that I always kept an eye on them and made sure not to lose them, besides, you get them back when peace is made, which is a reason for your enemy to care if he captures your leader or vice-versa. The whole leader shortage plays a significant role in strategical and tactical plans.

[donkuchi19]

You can also bargain with other countries to borrow their leaders. If a country wants your support on something, give me a worthwhile leader to help me and I'll help you.

[fjbn]

But this leader must be acompanied with a corp, and so there is the risk of losing points, or maybe the borrower country is not at war with my enemy.

[NeverMan]

You also have to have declared combined movement for this to occur. The one corp for a point is a good thing for most countries.

example: Austria and Prussia often do combined movement when allied and at war with France. This allows a stack of 6 under Charles, say 4 Au Corp and 2 Prussian corp. So when Charles loses to the French, Pr loses 1 pp and Au loses 2 pp, but when they win (say against a stack of 6 French corp), they each get 3 pps. This is an awesome strategy and I would assume fairly prevelant throughout most EiA players' experiences with the game.

[ktotwf]

Ok, since I am mostly unfamiliar with the game system, let me ask you guys a bit of a leader's question.

Lets say we have Napoleon leading a French army (5.5.6) against Castanos (3.3.3) leading a Spanish Army. Now, how would Napoleon's advantage in tactical ability affect the battle?

I'm curious to know just how the leader system works. If anyone is willing to get a little detailed?

[Titi]

In the board game, there is a chart where you compare the two leaders tactical score with the result of having a minus one to the combat die roll each round (for the worse one), a +1 to the die roll (for the best one), or the two at the same time if there is a huge difference.

The +1 is the same as the cavalry bonus, so if you have a good leader and double of cavalry factors, you have a +2 to the die roll. Enough to save the day for Nappy when you're unlucky.

[ktotwf]

So, if for example Wellington and Napoleon faced off in some Belgium town...I dunno, you pick one [;)] they both being equal in rating, then there would be no bonuses on either side?