Matrix Games Forums

Have anyone in any game seen the disaster in Russia take place?

Napoleon invaded with about 660 000 men (that is similar to 350 factors) and returned with less than 100 000 men (including all stragglers and escaped prisoners etc). Battle losses close to 100-150 000 men, the rest due to weather, food shortage etc. In combat factors some 10-15...

In all my games the french are never reduced this much. Reason are supply chains and so on.

What are your experiences? From board game AND the computer version? (If testers or Marshal can answer?)

I've never seen an invasion of Russia that went really deep in. Once Russia was backstabed by it's german allies after a french defeat, with a simultaneous Turkish and British DoW. Obviously there wasn't much the Russian player could do with the quality portion of their armies being trapped in germany.

Another game saw Russia being invaded by Austria and Prussia, defending at the border and being soundly defeated, and shortly after surrendering (even though he didn't have to - the russian player was fairly inexperimented).

In yet another game in the same situation, Russia withdrew deep in it's territory in 1805, then defeated the spearhead of the prusso-austrian army followed up by a flanking maneuver along with cossacks that nearly trapped the bulk of the german armies inside russia as winter started. A narrow escape followed, and the 1806 year was spent in stalemate as most austrian troops were withdrawn to face Turkey. We never finished that game. The escape of the german armies in 1805 was extremely close. Only a single area ended up being open, after force marching a corps to reopen supply lines through a cossack, a move that the russians could have prevented if I remember correctly... Had the encirclement being complete, these armies would have had to forage for at least one turn, maybe 2, overstacked inside the russian borders and I'd say that's one disaster that would have rivaled what you're describing.

I've seen the british landing in an undefended St-Petersburgh a few times as well. Way too many russians have a landlocked mindset and do not take appropriate measures to counter the threat that can develop the most rapidly.

But by and large I have only rarely seen Russia facing a large-scale invasion from land in the 1805 campaign game. And I've never seen France in a dominant enough position to even think about attempting it.

Yes, I have seen german (Austria-Prussia) invasions of Russia, but rarely a wipeout of invading forces. France usually comes in the back...

Only once did a French, Austrian and Turkish army invade. It was a trap to lure Turkish forces from Africa, but the invasion never went further than one or two provinces into Russia and no battles were fought. The Russian was very baffled by the invading armies strange behavior...
I think in the end Austria declared war on Turkey (they were never allied) and it became a rush on Istanbul. Strange diplomacy in this game.

In one of my FtF games there was a major invasion to Russia (I played Russia). Russia was winning the game, so Turkey, germans and France attacked to the Russia. I had no choise but whitdraw and try to slow down their moves. They just tried to reach my army and beat it, but I made it so hard as I could.

I don't know what would have happen, becouce I reached my victory point target before first major battle was fought. But allies left a huge number of forage losses to russia (they just moved whitout supply sometimes).

My Russia was fought for three years (in an abhorration game) by Prussia, Austria, and Turkey. THeir armies were wiped out repeatedly in that time and they kept rebuilding them and coming back at me.

Remember that Napoleon had one of the worst winters on record which translates to rolling the worst possible results on attrition rolls. Also in game terms I think what he got out with was several Corps markers all with a few infantry strength points in them. He was certainly in no shape to fight but his army was not annihalted.

We faced that very same problem playing EiA over the years. Let me just say that my group of friends has been playing EiA for over 20 years. Usually we play 3 player or 5 player games. Occasionally, we are lucky enough to get a 7 player game together. Anyway, for years, we had the same problem. Once Naploeon forces Prussia and Austria into a long term peace, he doesn't pay nearly the price for a Russian invasion as the historical Naploeon did.

Because of this, we added our own optional rule. One of our players is a Napoleonic scholar, and his musings got us to thinking of the Russian "scorched earth" policy. As the Russians retreat from foreign invaders, they often burn their own countryside so as to deny resources to the enemy. We implemented a rule that allowed Russia to change the forage value of any home province to "0" by occupying it for one turn declaring it scorched. Consequently, during the economic phase, Russia can collect no money points for the following year (12 months, 4 economic phases), though it still retains manpower allotments. Any force that forages on that province must treat it as a "0" forage value, with winter penalties still applying. You can imagine...that means a winter forage roll starts out as -2 before modifiers!

Russia then only has to effectively use cossacks and possibly mobile cavalry units to disrupt supply lines, and watch the fun happen!

France can combat this by setting up a reduntant system of depots and/or heavily garrisoning the depots, but such a solution is quite expensive. Even without disrupted supply lines, overal troop strenth is diminished for any invading force.

It is an expensive solution for Russia, too, but the mere threat of it intimidates invaders, making them more hesitant to try it. On the other hand, if Russia uses this option, it will go hungry for a year, and spend more time making up for it in the future. Talk about a nuclear option.

I'd love for such an optional rule to be available in a future update of the game, by the way.

ORIGINAL: icowrich

Once Naploeon forces Prussia and Austria into a long term peace, he doesn't pay nearly the price for a Russian invasion as the historical Naploeon did.

The problem is, that if you've do not have a valid supply chain and have to rely on foraging the losses are quiet low, even in winter.

We had the following situation in one of our games:
France was able (with a lot of lucky die-rolls) to crush Prussia and Austria with very few losses and forced them into long peaces (and a marriage). He also got the allowance to pass through Prussia. Then he started an invasion of Russia with 8 of his corps and 2 Cav-Corps.
The Russian managed to disrupt his supply chain and the French (close to Moscow on a LVL 3 Supply field) had to rely on foraging.
So he just stood there and waited (because movement points lower the die-roll) until his other cav-corp could establisch an alternate supply chain. His losses were very low.
There is a +1 on the die per corp in the area, but this adds up to a max of 2.
So with his 4 movement points he still had a -2 on the die.
LWL 3 supply on the area and -2 on the die means only with a 6 he would lose a factor....

Our solution is the following and it's not only applying to Russia but anywhere on the map:

There is no maximum to per corps addition when foraging.
This way, the situation would have been like this.

8 Corps + 2 Cav-corps makes 10
-4 Movement still makes a +6 on the die.
Therefore even if you throw a 1 on a LVL 3 area you lose 4 army factors. And if you take the average 3 or 4 you'll lose 6 to 7 army factors per turn. And this doesn't include the additional +2 for winter.

And absolutely no army can stand this for long. You've only three chances:
1.
go for it an try to win the war before you starve (in Russia this is nearly impossible)

2.
Try to retreat to save territory (but then you'll lose -4 because of movement and you add 4 more losses a round)

3.
You spread your army into different areas and let them forage there with a much better chance to survive (but the defender will have an easily destroy your army bit by bit)

So, to the end, you are in a lose-lose-situation. After we implemented this rule, a break in a supply chain resulted in an retreat trying to save what may be saved.

In the above situation (assuming all corps were full strength) and assuming a 3 on each die-roll and only LVL 3 supply areas, the result would have been the following:
Turn 1:
8 Corps - Losses of 8 Army factors per corp
2 Cavs - Losses of 2 army factors per corp

Turn 2 (After dissolving 3 Corps):
5 Corps - Losses of 5 Army factors per corp
2 Cavs - Losses of 2 army factors per corp

Turn 3 (After dissolving another Corpan a Cav-Corp):
4 Corps - Losses of 4 Army factors per corp
1 Cavs - Losses of 1 army factors per corp

After this we can assume that ther will be a valid supply chain.
Result:
An army of 155 Inf and 36 Cav starves on the way back.
After 3 Turns there are only 60 Inf and 17 Cav remaining. Losses are about 60% of the army - without a fight.


As a summary I'd say that your solution is an advantage for the Russian. This way he gets nearly invulnerable. Our solution hurts every attacker the same way.
We were a bit afraid that this would result in a situation where no one attacks but it never occured. We just started a better planning (alternate supply lines across sea, leavin corps behind to secure).

Just to give you an idea what other people are doing...