Matrix Games Forums

There hasn't been a new thread for awhile, and those that are still getting some action seem to be petering out, [>:] so I thought I'd try my hand at starting a new one.

I find my own qualities as an EiA player somewhat varied. On the offense, I tend to get cautious and conservative, and, quite frankly, pretty unimaginative (in real life, I would probably have been a general like George B. McClellan -- maddeningly cautious and ineffectual on the offense). I tend to be unwilling to take risks, and tend to resort to a mass-and-overwhelm strategy. But when on the defense, I find that being backed into a corner makes me resourceful, makes me take risks (what choice do I have?), makes me (desperately?) seek out the inobvious and unanticipated stratagem that could wreak havoc on my attacker. In short, I am better on the defense than the offense.

Knowing this about myself, I often wonder which country in EiA I am best suited to play? I know that every player must be on the offense at some point; but I sometimes wonder whether there are certain countries more suited to my particular style?

Any views on which countries require what kind of player/personality/strengths? Are there any countries that tend to mask certain weaknesses more effectively than others?

Cheers!

If you compare the countries and power (naval and land) you can give an easy description of how each country/player is going to be played...for example.

FR totally offensive if he wants to win the game, they have the best army.
GB very specific offensive actions against FR, if he wants to win the game and help the other players/nations against FR.
RU can play neutral or offensive, nobody on his back is a good advantage and a great army.
PR very defensive, it going to be in trouble for many times during a game, FR and RU like to beat him up...
AU defensive, normaly only gets into war with FR or TU, but RU can always surprise him, SP and GB is not very common.
TU very offensive to win land and points, but as the weakest can be in trouble with SP, GB, RU and AU....
SP defensive, waiting for his moment to attack, pobrably to TU and FR or GB, not much more to choose.


BUT, this is a great game and the DIPLOMACY and players acts are very important, so I think that all above will only be true if everybody plays by himself....and the winners will be those who agree to play togheter....

And this makes this the GREATEST GAME, since any country may win and everygame is different.

I find that in any game of EiA, whomever has the 'golden toungue' is always in competition to win. I have had games where (as England) I had not won a single land battle (LOTS of ties), and the naval battles were few and far between.... yet through negotiation and prper DOW's, was still in second place in 1811...

Negotiation is key to any game of EiA.

Have to agree with that. Military prowess alone won't win the game, and seems in fact to create coalitions more than helping win the game [:D]

Diplomacy on steroids.

[quote]ORIGINAL: ardilla

FR totally offensive if he wants to win the game, they have the best army.
GB very specific offensive actions against FR, if he wants to win the game and help the other players/nations against FR.
RU can play neutral or offensive, nobody on his back is a good advantage and a great army.
PR very defensive, it going to be in trouble for many times during a game, FR and RU like to beat him up...
AU defensive, normaly only gets into war with FR or TU, but RU can always surprise him, SP and GB is not very common.
TU very offensive to win land and points, but as the weakest can be in trouble with SP, GB, RU and AU....
SP defensive, waiting for his moment to attack, pobrably to TU and FR or GB, not much more to choose.

Any additions (or contradictions) to this? Looks like an excellent summary to me (and jives in most points with my own experience), but if there are any other views, I'm interested in hearing them . . .

Have to agree with that. Military prowess alone won't win the game, and seems in fact to create coalitions more than helping win the game

Which is of course not historical at all. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

Have to agree with that. Military prowess alone won't win the game, and seems in fact to create coalitions more than helping win the game

Which is of course not historical at all. [:'(]

Isnt´t it? Consider the fact that Napoleons victories (and his humiliation of his enemies - Victorious generals make bad peace makers) brought several coalitions against France.
And consider the fact that no one was really interested in upsetting the balance (unless it gave THEM more power)

ORIGINAL: Regeurk
FR totally offensive if he wants to win the game, they have the best army.
GB very specific offensive actions against FR, if he wants to win the game and help the other players/nations against FR.
RU can play neutral or offensive, nobody on his back is a good advantage and a great army.
PR very defensive, it going to be in trouble for many times during a game, FR and RU like to beat him up...
AU defensive, normaly only gets into war with FR or TU, but RU can always surprise him, SP and GB is not very common.
TU very offensive to win land and points, but as the weakest can be in trouble with SP, GB, RU and AU....
SP defensive, waiting for his moment to attack, pobrably to TU and FR or GB, not much more to choose.

Any additions (or contradictions) to this? Looks like an excellent summary to me (and jives in most points with my own experience), but if there are any other views, I'm interested in hearing them . . .

As a general rule I'd not be overly agressive with any country except maybe France. The stronger a country is, and the more expansionist you are, the more likely you have enemies plotting a revenge and it's also likely that other powers that might not pay too much attention to you will think about launching a preemptive war.

France is the exception, not only because of the high need for political points, but also because you are most likely going to be the target of a coalition anyway in the short or most mid term, regardless of how low profile you want to be, so you might as well start gathering resources and territories right away in expectation of this war. Though (in my opinion) you should still resist excessive expansionist temptations, and avoid crushing Prussia and Austria completely. Crush their armies, sure, gain as many political points as you can but grant them relatively lenient peace conditions and leave them with enough territory to maintain the illusion of a strong Pr-As alliance. If you crush Prussia and Austria to oblivion the odds of having to face a much stronger coalition the next round are much higher, as other powers may flock to the coalition's banner to restore some semblance of balance of power.

This won't necessarily be the case though.. I remember a game where I had the misfortune of being Prussia with a rookie austrian partner (who lasted 2 game sessions), facing a secret GB-Fr alliance. They were officially at war using option 11.9.2, but never actually fought, and it took us a year to realize what was going on - by that time spain, Prussia, Austria had virtually ceased to exist as major powers, and Turkey was a british vassal. Since the Tu-Fr-GB alliance never broke in the next years, the game was basically over.

The next game we played with mostly the same players was more interesting and more "Standard" as well. France and GB waged an "honest" war and pretty much through the first half of the game french agressiveness and success was constantly matched by a coalition of corresponding strength inflicting 2 serious defeats to the french - who by the way as a general rule played much better than their opponents, but still couldn't win against the overwhelming numbers provided by the coalition his agressiveness and expansionism helped create.

Another example of how military success tend to create coalitions that tend to match the extent of these successes is a game I played as Austria. Prussia, GB and I started the game at war with France and had extensive early success. Russia joined the war on the french side when things started to look really bad for France, but french still surrendered to preserve it's last few minors (had their capitals occupied and they would have been conquered by the end of the turn). We then turned on Russia - who didn't want to surrender conditionally - but that convinced Turkey to enter the war against us. The 1806 campaign brought about the crushing defeat of Turkey and Russia being pushed back deep in it's territory, but with the prospect of another war with the french in early 1807 with the russian problem still unresolved. That game was a great example of how extensive military success tend to create coalition strong enough to negate all that was gained through these successes and more - and a good reason as to why I absolutely hate to play Austria or Prussia [:D]

Anyway that was rather long, but what I was trying to point out is that winning EiA is about political points. If through military success or agressiveness you extend your power and assets to a point where you appear threatening to powers that normally shouldn't be hostile, then you're probably at the point where you're overextended, and these extra territories might very well mean a war that you can't win, with assorted political points losses for the war and the territories.

Another way to become a target is having a lot of minors under your control. Conquering those, is a more sure way of gaining PP than improbable victories, except maybe for the french.
I saw Russian control most of Italy, same for Spain and becoming the focus of improbable coalitions.
Just grab what is vital for you, and let the other powers fight for the control of minor is probably the best advice.

But in 1805 as Prussia or Austria, be agressive, deprive the french of those minors that will turn la grande armée into a too numerous army. Don't anihilate the French, nor seek an inconditional surrender and the removal of Napoleon, just beat him enough to make him restricted to home nation and having the taste to try to recover in a war against spain.

For Russia, engaging with the French against an Au/Pr and GB coalition in 1806 is really a bad idea that can cost him the game. It's the perfect occasion for GB to destroy the russian fleet, conquer Scandinavia and finally capture St-Petersburgh with the help of prussian corps and keep it supplied with Finland cities and invasion supply.
No need like the french to march on Moscow, just let Russia starve and gains PP against armies full of militia.

Austria is enough to keep the Turk busy and Prussia, Austria and GB armies just with the germans, italians and others minors are still growing at the same pace as French ones for another fight 18 months later (that last part is in the Barbu's situation).

That is a fancy question you have asked. I find the country that is most defensive is prussia. Even with a great amount of manpower you lack money to build a strong aggressive army in a short period of time. The only time you have the opportunity to be offensive is at the beginning if you declare war on France from the get go, and that is only if you have Austria and the Great British Navy on your side.

Also if you add the polish conflict into the game it makes it even more complicated for Prussia. With that Gem even your best friends may become your worst enemy and longest nightmare.

Defense is fun, but the offensive side of the game makes it outstanding.

ORIGINAL: Titi

For Russia, engaging with the French against an Au/Pr and GB coalition in 1806 is really a bad idea that can cost him the game. It's the perfect occasion for GB to destroy the russian fleet, conquer Scandinavia and finally capture St-Petersburgh with the help of prussian corps and keep it supplied with Finland cities and invasion supply.
No need like the french to march on Moscow, just let Russia starve and gains PP against armies full of militia.

I don't think it is wise for GB to sink the Russian fleet, unless he is also able to sink either the spanish or the french at the same time.

I as Spain or France would be verry upset with the Brittish naval blocking st. petersburg and pinning the russian fleet in an attempt to destroy it. And it would give me the perfect occation to invade England. And lets se how long GB can fund afford to stay in russia when london has fallen.

And if Prussia, austria and france has enforced peace, then I would even go as far as calling the player controling Britain as the worst player I have ever seen. Nothing creates a coalition as fast as visualy upsetting the balance of the power in the game. And removing the russian fleet would not only be considered agressive against Russia, but it would be considered an agression against all Major powers with a fleet. And when only Prussia and Austria dont fall into that category, they are the only ones likely to help GB fight of the coalition, so them having enforced peace with France would be a disaster for GB.

ORIGINAL: Barbu
France is the exception, not only because of the high need for political points, but also because you are most likely going to be the target of a coalition anyway in the short or most mid term, regardless of how low profile you want to be, so you might as well start gathering resources and territories right away in expectation of this war. Though (in my opinion) you should still resist excessive expansionist temptations, and avoid crushing Prussia and Austria completely. Crush their armies, sure, gain as many political points as you can but grant them relatively lenient peace conditions and leave them with enough territory to maintain the illusion of a strong Pr-As alliance. If you crush Prussia and Austria to oblivion the odds of having to face a much stronger coalition the next round are much higher, as other powers may flock to the coalition's banner to restore some semblance of balance of power.

Barbu is right, and France and GB would share the same fate if France crushed Austria and Prussia and GB sank the Russian or the spanish fleet

I have read many interesting strategic views, congratulations!

If this game ever ships I hope we'll pbem a though campaign

I don't see why Sp would declare war on GB if GB is part of an alliance with Pr/Au and Ru declare war on it.
The goal of the coalition is to force Ru to surrender by capturing St-Peterburg. It can't be done without removing Ru from Scandinavia and destroying the Ru baltic fleet. Details can and must be negociated with Sp but i don't see any form of Casus Belli in that.
Even more if Tu is on the same side as Ru and Fr.
Of course, that may change if they ask unconditional to Russia.
It won't be better for anybody to have GB defeated and surrender that it wil be to have FR surrender to GB.

Patience in EiA is a virtue and the game is very long. Some players must pay for their mistakes and in this situation, it seams to me Ru did one. If everybody declare war on the first occasion, i doubt the game will ever see the end.

I would declare war right away if that was the situation at the early game. Although it's possible, it's very hard to defeat GB if one out of the Sp/fr/rs fleet is destroyed. Give it a year of 2 of ship building and it's virtually game over. Also, my guess would be that with most GB players, the spanish fleet would be next since that would secure the game for GB. Spain's status as a major power is almost entirely about her fleet, and being able to use it. Rather than being virtually forced to jump in bed with France, as a spanish player I'd rather do everything possible first to save the russian fleet first.

I have heard often that people love playing France, some love Britain (others don't), most like Russia . . . but I've only rarely met people who like playing Prussia or Austria --here's an example from Barbu:

ORIGINAL: Barbu

... and a good reason as to why I absolutely hate to play Austria or Prussia [:D]

Anyone out there actually like playing Austria or Prussia? Anyone know of any games where Austria or Prussia actually won?

I love Austria and Prussia. It puts you in the mix throughout the entire game. For Prussia it is almost imperative to ally with GB to have some financial gain. If all you do is play the game to win and not to pick chits and roll dice then I understand why most love Russia France and GB.

I think the most challenging position in the game is Spain who usually ends up as the pivot man in a circle Jerk. But hey to each his own.

Can't wait for the game.

We've never actually completed any game but here's about how it looked like when we stopped.

Game #1: Prussia and Spain were leading for vps around 1809 but the game was clearly GB's - Spanish fleet destroyed, french and russian fleet half destroyed, and Prussia exhausted from continuous warfare with the french and russian and facing what looked like an imminent defeat with no good long term propects.

Game #2: Russia had a clear lead for vps when we stopped (1797 - revolution scenario) but things didn't look too good for the future since Suvarov was just killed in a battle. France was second, and healthy having freshly defeated Prussia and austria and achieved dominance.

Game #3: Stopped after 2 years of play - France had a noticeable lead, with GB being in a solid 2nd position.

Game #4: stopped at around 1810 - Russia was in the lead for vps, followed by spain then GB, Russia had just been crushed by a coalition of Pr/as/tu/GB and spain soundly defeated by GB at the same time as well. With GB having complete naval supremacy and a good position on the PSA chart, the game looked solidly in her camp.

Game #5: I played Austria in that one (described above). stopped in late 1806. for Vps, Austria was first, GB 2nd, but with multiple hostile neighbors for Austria and the french fleet at the bottom of the havres harbor (yay for that prussian corps that forced marched), things looked good for GB to win that one as well.

Game #6: not even finished 1805 (ended in december I think). A lot happened though, GB fell to a sp/fr/tu invasion. France meanwhile was struggling with a rs/as/pr coalition - not being overwhelmed but having clearly unfavorable odds against her. Things looked very good for Spain and Turkey (Turkey managed to win wars with As and Rs as well!), having suffered minimal losses and having made substantial gains in the wars in which they were involved. Hard to say what would have happened though since it's pretty hard for these 2 countries to consolidate material gains in the long term - but the short and mid term sure looked very good.

I'd say that would look like 3 clear wins for GB and 1 for france out of the 6 games I played, with 2 being undecided. Not really a sample large enough to outright say that austria or Prussia can't win though [:)]. One problem that Prussia and Austria do have in that respect is that due to their central position and proximity to France, they are virtually forced into a war at the very start of the game. And from that point, circumstances will rarely evolv to their advantage, with a war in which they have at best 50% chance of winning without interference, and with 2 neighbors (Russia and Turkey) who will generally be more of a problem than help - note here I am not saying that's the correct move for either Russia or Turkey, but it's what I have commonly observed. That, or being defeated by France in the first place. No matter the country you play, you still have to be at least in the 8+ vp/turn to have a chance at winning. Hard for Austria and Prussia to maintain that pace with an hostile Rs/Tu, especially if you play with economic manipulation.

Your mileage may vary I guess - It IS possible to win as these countries, but it heavily depends on the personality of the players. The worse you can get is probably a mentally landlocked russian. I just don't like to play them because I end up reacting a lot more than influence the events. If I have to fight coalitions, I'd rather be France. but in the end, I'd play either rather than not play at all [:D]

ORIGINAL: Titi

I don't see why Sp would declare war on GB if GB is part of an alliance with Pr/Au and Ru declare war on it.
The goal of the coalition is to force Ru to surrender by capturing St-Peterburg. It can't be done without removing Ru from Scandinavia and destroying the Ru baltic fleet. Details can and must be negociated with Sp but i don't see any form of Casus Belli in that.
Even more if Tu is on the same side as Ru and Fr.
Of course, that may change if they ask unconditional to Russia.
It won't be better for anybody to have GB defeated and surrender that it wil be to have FR surrender to GB.

Patience in EiA is a virtue and the game is very long. Some players must pay for their mistakes and in this situation, it seams to me Ru did one. If everybody declare war on the first occasion, i doubt the game will ever see the end.

Personally I agree with Barbu, i would think everyone should worry if GB gets to totally dominate the seas (except GB of course) from early in the game. You can get a coalition together that can threaten to invade France easily enuf but if no one has any ships the same cant be said about a coalition against GB. It takes a LOT of money and a LONG time to build a fleet back up from nothing and you cant do it by surprise.

The ability to strike at where-ever the enemy isnt ,and hop aboard your ships and go away to safety if an army thats too big comes near means the Brits will be raking in the VP's i would think, and will have a pretty good sized army from that african manpower and the Swedish corps.

The Brits have the added bonus of taking VP's off anyone who looks to be doing too well at getting to there VP total. Of course if no-one gets to there victory point target then GB wins anyway!

ORIGINAL: Regeurk

Anyone out there actually like playing Austria or Prussia? Anyone know of any games where Austria or Prussia actually won?

The first few games I ever played were as Prussia and I thought it was fun... That is if you can count on Austria and can survive the first year of war with France! I even managed to attain dominant status in one of those (though the French player repeatedly roled VERY bad dice the whole game!!!).

Martin Paradis