Some Newbie questions

[Mantzikert]

Overall I didn't have a lot of difficulty learning the game mechanics, and I haven't even worked through the online tutorial yet. However what I am struggling to understand is some of the whys?

Here are the specific questions to date.

1) Why do you want to create freestates and why do you want allies? Why don't you just ignore them all and wait for them to be attacked to bring them on to your side?
2) How did Russia get Portugal as a Free state in the test game I'm playing?
3) I get the feeling you should tick nearly everything in the "Accept control of" box of the Diplomatic Reactions screen?
4) If an assault fails, what? Do you just have to wait another turn? (Stupid little minor country garrison with 1 Infantry factor just stopped 4 Infantry corps with about 50 factors).

[fvianello]

1) you want to create a freestate or have allies for their troops. Conquered have no troops, freestate and allies does.
2) when a minor country is attacked, every MP that checked the "accept control of" in the diplomatic screen gets a chance to control it. So Russia can control portugal if spain attacks it.
3) yes, usually you tick everything
4) If assault fails you can hope the garrison will fall to starvation. During the supply phase it has to roll for forage and could die for lack of supply.

[moopere]

Good post. I also find myself asking 'why' many times during the game. As with you, I have a reasonable, if basic, grasp of the mechanics, but I often find myself doing things simply because I can.

I'm hoping that the the tutorial which Matrix is putting together will help us all not only with some of the subtle detail of how to run the game but also with some scenarios and answers to the 'why'.

Cheers,
Moopere

[Grognot]

ORIGINAL: Mantzikert
1) Why do you want to create freestates and why do you want allies? Why don't you just ignore them all and wait for them to be attacked to bring them on to your side?

Free states gain double income and manpower. They're also not going to revert to neutral if you land in the instability zone. However, it comes at a cost -- the income and manpower now belong to it, and can't be saved over time. So if you're wealthy and your army is pretty well manned, you may benefit more from having the nation be a free state. If you're impoverished, however, you may need to think twice about declaring valuable territory into a free state.

Turning a neutral state into an ally means that not only will they be your free state if somebody DOWs them (and you're willing and eligible to take control), but that a DOW on -you- makes them your free states.

2) How did Russia get Portugal as a Free state in the test game I'm playing?

Somebody DOW'd them -- probably Spain, as a first-turn Spanish DOW against Portugal is a fairly ordinary play -- and they rolled control.

3) I get the feeling you should tick nearly everything in the "Accept control of" box of the Diplomatic Reactions screen?

Often but not necessarily. Accepting control means that any other major with which you're at war can freely move through or conquer it -- not just the major who DOW'd it. In certain cases, you may prefer that some other major get it to keep one or more enemies uninvolved.

Accepting certain minors may also put you in a diplomatic hot-seat, which you may or may not enjoy.

4) If an assault fails, what? Do you just have to wait another turn? (Stupid little minor country garrison with 1 Infantry factor just stopped 4 Infantry corps with about 50 factors).

Yep.

[Mantzikert]

Thanks all for the replies.
 
I'm playing Austria in a test game.  I've gotten Swabia and Modena to be allies and am working on Bavaria.  (Spending lots of money along the way).
 
So France declares war on me (it hasn't happened yet, but surely it is just a matter of time).  All my allies join in the war as ??? my free states?
 
France then captures those states easily wiping out any forces they have without any effort.  I lose PP's for the lost battles (and for losing the territories?).  What have I gained for all that money I spent?  Or should I be trying to Naples on my side so that it can threaten his supply lines from the side?  But he is France, he doesn't care about supply because he just forages????
 
I kind of think I'm better saving my money for my own troops.
 
Oh and a question about foraging.  I costs you about $1 per month to supply troops (not foraging).  Once turn I lost about 6 infantry from failed forages, which will cost me about $18 to replace.  But if I had paid for all my corps to have paid supply for a turn, it only would have cost me about $6.  Foraging seems to be only for those occasions when you are on the offensive and a long way from your depots.

[Jimmer]

You have to consider the tradeoffs. In my opinion, only France, GB, and Turkey (Africa only) have any real business paying money to influence or ally with a minor. There are a couple of exceptions, but they require a commitment to war.
 
In fact, ALL "influence" and "ally" changes only matter if war occurs. That's an important point to remember: Without a war, absolutely nothing (good or bad) happens to them.
 
Anyhow, the exceptions would be the ones that have either corps or fleet counters that you want to join your side in a war. For example, let's say Spain is willing to go to war with Great Britain over Portugal. I won't comment on whether that is a good idea or not, but it illustrates how things might be favorable:
 
If Spain spends money and makes Portugal influenced or allied, then he knows that he will get the nation. But, it will only be his for 2+ turns unless he declares war against GB (the best way, when one KNOWS it's going to happen, is to check the box to defend that minor). Only then will Spain get to keep Portugal for more than a nominal amount of time.
 
Is it worth it? That's a strategic or tactical decision that Spain has to make. But, the point is that it is HIS choice. If he doesn't have influence, anybody could get it.

[Grognot]

As to foraging, it can save you a fair bit of coin if the corps are only moving through high-supply regions, or better yet stay parked in one.  Foraging in the Pripyet Marshes in Russia (not the sanest place to march), or central Norway (why are you there?!) or in most of North Africa, is usually a pretty bad idea... but if you're sitting in a high-supply area like northern Italy, it's winter, the nearest depot is two regions away... you have a choice of paying $4/corps (two regions away, doubled for winter) or foraging with quite possibly no loss.

If you've got French forces sitting at home, doing nothing -- 1 pt bonus for home nation, 4 pt bonus for 4 unused movement points assuming they're not involved in sieges.  The maximum penalties for immobile forces are +2 winter and +2 for at least two other corps present, for a net of 1 bonus even in the worst case (3+ corps same region, winter).  That means that the entire French OOB could be sitting in a single 5 or 6 supply area in France, in winter, with no depot supply, and be guaranteed to not lose a single factor.  Outside of winter, and absent significant stacks, foraging will be more broadly safe.

If you're playing Turkey and not having much luck persuading others to subsidize you, expect to forage often -- and badly, because you tend to be in bad supply areas, have low depressingly income, and have difficulties winning battles with small stacks.

[Mantzikert]

During the reinforcement phase, is there a quick way to jump to all the places you have reinforcements arriving, or do you have to go looking for them?

[Marshall Ellis]

No, but I that sounds like a great idea. Actually if you attempt to end your phase and there is a minor that has forces left to be placed then I believe it zooms to that minor(?)
 
 

[BoerWar]

One other reason why you might not tick off control of every minor is consideration for or deals with your allies. As GB why snatch control of a German minor you can't defend when Prussia might be able to. Just count it as money lent.[;)]

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

No, but I that sounds like a great idea. Actually if you attempt to end your phase and there is a minor that has forces left to be placed then I believe it zooms to that minor(?)

Yes, that's correct.

One thing that would be nice and is related to this: Do the same thing for free states which have not yet had their econ done during the econ phase. It is possible to forget a minor's econ, and the game doesn't warn you.

[Ralegh]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
One thing that would be nice and is related to this: Do the same thing for free states which have not yet had their econ done during the econ phase. It is possible to forget a minor's econ, and the game doesn't warn you.

Thats a GREAT idea. Yes please, Marshall.

[iamspamus]

I often find myself wanting to tick off the guys with troops. Perhaps there could be two new radial buttons to choose from in the list of minors to control:

1: All
2. All with troops -

with either of these you should then be able to "go from there", so that you could hit all and then remove a couple that you might not want.

Just some suggestions.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
One thing that would be nice and is related to this: Do the same thing for free states which have not yet had their econ done during the econ phase. It is possible to forget a minor's econ, and the game doesn't warn you.

Thats a GREAT idea. Yes please, Marshall.

I like this as well. Will put this on the list.

[Mantzikert]

Wow, my thread led to a game improvement.  I feel honoured.
 
Ok, another stupid question.  The only reason I can find for building infantry instead of militia is because once your morale drops >2.0 you have to take losses from other types (and you wouldn't want it to be cavalry).
 
Have I missed something?  Is there a reason for building infantry that I can't find?

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Mantzikert

Wow, my thread led to a game improvement. I feel honoured.

Ok, another stupid question. The only reason I can find for building infantry instead of militia is because once your morale drops >2.0 you have to take losses from other types (and you wouldn't want it to be cavalry).

Have I missed something? Is there a reason for building infantry that I can't find?

Building militia vs infantry is a very complex question with a subtle set of answers.

Infantry has a higher morale than militia, and therefore less likely to break. You will win more battles with an army of infantry than you would with an army of militia. That's the main reason.

Remember that you build troops as garrison factors as well as to put into corps. I would normally build all infantry in my corps, except perhaps as Russia and sometimes Austria which seem to have surplus manpower over cash. I would never normally build militia as Britain (you have the cash to spare, and your 4.5 morale infantry is WAY better than your 2.0 morale militia) or as Prussia -- as Prussia you can save the manpower and build infantry when you need it. Most other nations will need to build militia at some stage otherwise they'll run short of money or never be able to build cavalry or guards.

Building militia as garrisons rather than infantry is a good idea, generally. If you have a 20 factor militia garrison and it breaks, you have lost 20 factors of militia. If you have a 20 factor infantry garrison and it breaks, you have lost 20 factors of infantry. There are some points to note, though:

* Firstly, remember that if your garrison breaks in the same round that the besieging forces break, you have effectively won the combat. If your garrison breaks and the enemy does not, or if your garrison is eliminated, then you have lost the combat and the city.

* A garrison is attacked on the 5-1 table. Morale 2.0 militia will only break on a roll of 6, which means you usually survive to the second round of battle. Since you're fighting on the 5-2 table there's a good chance of you breaking the enemy or causing major casualties in two rounds.

* A garrison that has *just* enough infantry to take the total morale up to 2.3 will never break on the first round -- it will always survive to the second round and thus always has a good chance of breaking the enemy, since a garrison attacks on the 5-2 table.

* A garrison that has morale 4.5 or over cannot break even in two rounds, whereas in the third round the enemy will almost always break (facing 3 rolls at 5-2). So if you have enough British troops to put down a sizeable garrison (almost never, but here's hoping) then don't dilute it with militia because you lose your magical survivability. London garrisoned with 25 British troops (when do you ever see that, but hey) is very very hard to take.

Of course, Turkey cannot build militia nor can minors, so for those you have to build infantry.

Does that answer the question or make it harder?

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
I would never normally build militia as Britain (you have the cash to spare, and your 4.5 morale infantry is WAY better than your 2.0 morale militia) ...

I agree with your whole post, except this line. As GB, I actually buy five militia in every game. These five are built in March, 1805 and are added to a corps counter in Gibraltar in April. Then, they are detached into the city, where they stay for the rest of the game.

The reason for this is that Gibraltar has three fletches. So, IF it is fully garrisoned, it is impregnable. Gibraltar is a 2-spire city, holding 10 troops. In order to be fully-garrisoned, it needs five factors to make it impregnable.

Now, since GB never really expects to USE these factors in combat, they can safely be militia.

In the old rules, one might have purchased a few militia factors for garrisoning conquered minors, too. However, that was when you could turn your militia into infantry by paying for them and waiting 3 months.

[Mantzikert]

Ahhh, morale.  That should have been obvious.
 
Thank you.

[Mantzikert]

I have a depot on mountains that I can't remove as it has troops in it.  I have moved a corps there, but I can't seem to transfer the forces out.  What am I missing?

[Jimmer]

It's considered a "corps to corps" transfer, not a garrison transfer, when in areas without cities.
 
I think.