EIA Setup - "View Available Counters"

[Greyshaft]

Here's a quick overview of setting up to play EIA. I'll skip the "Select Scenario", PBEM v. AI etc and jump straight into the screens. We're playing Russia and the game is open before us...What do we do?

First I click on the "View Available Counters" button which is the 5th button along at the top left of the screen. (Note it is not the 4th button which has an image of a mouse pointer... that pointer is part of the button art. My mouse pointer disappeared during the screencap). This shows what units I have available.

[Greyshaft]

When that screen opens I select 3 Infantry corps (note they have no troops in them yet) plus Kutusov then right-click to return to the map

[Greyshaft]

The map returns and I left-click on the desired province to place the selected units there.
The legend at the bottom of the screen shows me a picture of Kutusov with his Strategic(4) , Tactical(3) and Seniority(B) ratings.

I use the buttons in the bottom left of the screen to refine my setup. THe buttons perform the following actions:
TOP ROW
* Add forces to unit - add troops from the Force Pool to the selected Corp/Fleet Counter
* Add forces to Garrison - add troops from the Force Pool into a city on the map
* Remove counter from Map - delete selected counter and move it back to the "Available Counters" screen
* Save Current Forces Setup - once you have finished your setup you can save those deployments for use in another game
* Load a saved setup - reuse the startup deployments from another game
BOTTOM ROW
* Give unit mission orders - tell an allied minor nation what you want their troops to do
* Place/Remove depot
* Move unit into City - units in cities do not take part in field battles in that area but the city can be seiged or assaulted.
* Move unit out of City

[Hoche]

We're not worthy [&o], We're not worthy [&o], We're not worthy [&o], We're not worthy [&o], We're not worthy [&o]

[Hoche]

I do have a question. Do the leaders not have a tactical maximum rating?

[gazfun]

Thanks Mate, We really appreciate you doing this
[8D]

[Madcombinepilot]

What game functions are in place for the Leaders Corps Commading rating? Nappy could command 6 corps, Wellington 3, etc.

Is this version taking that into account?

[Madcombinepilot]

Looks great by the way

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Madcombinepilot
What game functions are in place for the Leaders Corps Commading rating? Nappy could command 6 corps, Wellington 3, etc. Is this version taking that into account?

ORIGINAL: Hoche
I do have a question. Do the leaders not have a tactical maximum rating?

MCP and Hoche have basically the same question. The game rules state the following:

4.4.3.7 Tactical Maximum Ratings
Each leader has a “tactical maximum rating”. If commanding more corps than this rating, the leader's tactical rating is reduced by “-1”,. Regardless of the number of corps commanded, the tactical rating can never be modified to below zero.

For example, if Napoleon, with a tactical maximum rating of “6” and a tactical rating of “5”, commands from seven to twelve corps, the tactical rating is reduced from “5” to “4”. He cannot command more than twelve corps.

All corps participating in a battle are counted for determining a commander's tactical rating.

No leader may command more corps than twice his tactical maximum. If additional corps are present in the location, they do not participate in the battle, but must retreat as per 0 if their side is required to do so.

There are many compromises which occur in translating a boardgame into a PC game and as a humble betatester I can't promise whether this will be in the final game or not. We need commentary from Marshall to confirm/deny/explain all design decisions.

[max_h]

how suited is the game for SP yet? will the ai be scripted for "Historical play" (french aggression, hist. alliances) or will it play a different strategy each game (even if its just 4,5 ...7 predefined scripts)?

(I hope for the later, else the game is too predictable)

[Greyshaft]

Each nation controlled by the AI can be given either an "Easy", "Medium" or "Hard" AI.

So if I want a vaguely historical solitaire game as Russia I would probably set France and Britain to "Hard", Spain and Austria to "Medium" and Turkey and Prussia to "Easy".

[ktotwf]

I'm pretty sure Austria would be on Easy. They never won anything.

[CICERON]

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

I'm pretty sure Austria would be on Easy. They never won anything.

What?[X(] And Leipzig? The Campaign of France?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: CICERON

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

I'm pretty sure Austria would be on Easy. They never won anything.

What?[X(] And Leipzig? The Campaign of France?

Uh oh... I smell a religious war approaching. I'm staying quiet on this one [:D]

[Wandering Eye]

Does the difficulty level of an individual AI-controlled nation influence that nation's stance towards (specifically) the player?

In other words, do you know if something like 'hard' vs. 'easy' means that

(1) A 'harder' difficulty means that the nation is more likely to be better run, less of a pushover for anybody, more likely to compete well for control over minors, perhaps get manpower/tax bonuses as a handicap (?), and not be restricted to more simple strategies, or ...

(2) A 'harder' difficulty makes that nation specifically more hostile to human-run nations, and more likely to collaborate with other AIs, while perhaps otherwise using similar strategies?

[ktotwf]

What? And Leipzig? The Campaign of France?

Austria was...if I recall correctly...heavily, heavily supported by allies in both of those. However, Austria did have the priviledge of being the country with the greatest number of at Bats against Napoleon, and the greatest number of losses.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Wandering Eye
Does the difficulty level of an individual AI-controlled nation influence that nation's stance towards (specifically) the player?

Sorry, I have no idea... you need to ask Marshall what is the effect of differrent AI settings.

[jhdeerslayer]

Such teasing...

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Deerslayer

Such teasing...

No teasing involved. There are three classes of information in beta-testing:

* Don't know therefore can't tell - pretty self-explanatory. I suggest you ask Marshall to talk about it in the Forums.
* Do know but won't tell - current bugs in the system and the potential Release Date. That's all.
* Do know and will tell - everything else.

Part of a beta-testers role is to help drum up enthusiasm for the game by explaining the game systems in these Forums so I see no point in teasing the avid readers. If I knew about the AI I would tell you.

[CICERON]

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

Austria was...if I recall correctly...heavily, heavily supported by allies in both of those. However, Austria did have the priviledge of being the country with the greatest number of at Bats against Napoleon, and the greatest number of losses.

Let's Napoleon reply. [:D] To his counsellor whom prefered Great Duchess Ann to Archduchess Mary-Louise of Habsbourg because Ausria coudn't be considered as a great power, he said: " You weren't at Wagram!" In fact, Wagram was a Pyrrhic victory :

- Austria: 23 744 losses+7585 prisoners,

-France: 33 854 losses+4000 prisoners.[:'(]

So to my mind, Austria was a greater power than Prussia, for exemple.[;)]