Empires in Arms Frequently Asked Questions *Maintained by David Holmes (David.C.Holmes@usa.alcatel.com) 24 February 2000 * denotes change from previous version dated 18 August 1999 Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The game 1.2 The map 1.3 The players 1.4 Official Answers 1.5 Electronic Aids 2.0 The Mailing List 3.0 Tactics Questions 4.0 Rules Questions 5.0 Loophole Tactics 6.0 Miscellaneous Topics 7.0 Strategy Tips for Specific Powers 1.0 Introduction This file is a record (by no means exhaustive) of the frequently asked questions (FAQ) which have appeared on the Empires in Arms mailing list since 17 February 1997. The latest version can be found at: *http://www.mindspring.com/~smonsour/Eia/ This FAQ is broken into major topics, each given an integer identifier. Topics subordinate to the major topics are given decimal identifiers. Note that in section 4. (rules topics), the decimal identifiers are not necessarily in sequence. The decimal numbers following the 4 indicate the rule about which the question is asked. For example, if you wish to see what questions have been asked about rule 6.3.1, go to section 4.6.3.1 of this FAQ. NOTE: Answers to questions found here are based on discussions on the EiA mailing list ONLY. Any answers from The Avalon Hill Game Co. will be clearly marked as such. 1.1 The Game Empires in Arms is The Avalon Hill Game Company's trademark for it's game of Napoleonic strategy and diplomacy. It was originally designed by Harry Rowland and Greg Pinder of the Australian Design Group. After purchase by TAHGC, S. Craig Taylor oversaw development. Army units are corps, with strength points of 1000-2000 men. Naval units are fleets with individual ships of the line. Counters are included for those leaders who historically held separate commands at one time or another. 1.2 The Map The map covers all of Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, Turkey, the Middle East, and North Africa. 1.3 The Players Each player controls the armed forces and diplomacy of one of the European great powers of the era, i.e. France, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain, or Turkey. 1.4 Official Answers from TAHGC The official question-answerer for EiA is Jeff Slater KALLENLB@AOL.COM. 1.5 Electronic Aids 1.5.1 Is there an electronic version of the map I can use? No. Generating such a map would be a violation of TAHGC's copyright. However, there is a standard naming convention for areas which is used. This can be obtained by ftp from ftp://bigbang.astro.indiana.edu/pub/eia/forms. The files are names map.east and map.west 1.5.2 The EIA webring Found at: http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski/eia.html 2.0 The Mailing List There is an automated mailing list for Empires in Arms players. To subscribe to this list, send a message to listproc@lists.pipex.com with the text "subscribe eia" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, use the same method, but put "unsubscribe eia" in the body of the message. To send a message to the list, use the address eia@lists.pipex.com. For problems, contact the list administrator at admin-eia@lists.pipex.com. NOTE: DO NOT put anything in the subject of these messages. This seems to cause problems. 3.0 Tactics Questions 3.1 Monster Stacks One tactic tried by many players is the use of "monster stacks." These are stacks of as many corps as you can put together. The theory is that the loss of leader tactical rating doesn't hurt that much, and you will inflict terrible losses on the enemy, even if you lose the battle. After one or two battles with such a stack, the enemy will have few troops left with which to defend. Many players feel that this tactic can be overcome by attacking the nation with the monster stack where it is lightly defended. They reason that, if the majority of the army is concentrated in one stack, many provincial and minor country capitals are left undefended. By capturing those capitals, you can force the monster stack to disperse to defend holdings. Other players feel that the monster stack is ahistorical and detracts so much from the game that they have written house rules to prevent it. Some are given below: 3.1.1 Peter Lodewyckx peter-L@tornado.be We have the following house rule: 1. Stacking in an area (regardless if combat occurs or not) is strictly limited to a. Corps with leader: 2 times maximal corps rating -1WITH a minimum of 2. This means a leader can never have more than a -1 on his tactical rating (unless reinforced, see below). Example: Nappie (5.5.6) can command 6 corps (5.5.6) or 6 to 11 corps (5.4.6). There cannot be more than 11 corps in the area with Napoleon. Even Jerome (2.2.1) can command 2 corps. b. Corps without a leader: All corps can stack with ONE other corps. Being stacked does affect their Tactical Rating by -1. So it becomes _1_ for FR, GB, and late PR corps and _0_ for all other. 2. This can only be violated due to reinforcement in combat. If a successful reinforcement occurs the commanding generals tactical rating can go (further) down due to excess corps. Example: Nappie (10 corps) is reinforced by Jerome (2 corps) then Nappie (in charge being A-class) goes from (5.4.6) to (5.3.6) after the reinforcement. 3. If after combat there is an excess number of corps present in an area (due to successful reinforcements) the OWNING player must retreat the appropriate number of corps according to the normal retreat rules (to supply source etc...). We have playtested this is a grand campaign game (we are currently in 1813) and it works just fine: 1. You get more "historical" feeling (no I will not re-start the discussion of Simulation versus Game :-) ): Marching Your stacks apart and concentrating on the enemy. 2. You use all Your leaders (not just Davout and Napoleon, even the Grand Vizir and Alexander become interesting with their high maximal ratings) 3. No "Free forage" with the entire French army in an area that hardly can accommodate that many soldiers, let alone feed them ! 3.1.2 David S Ammerman xportr@ix.netcom.com 1) The maximum # of corps allowed in an area (without penalty-see below) is determined by totaling the corps capacity of the TWO highest corp capacity leaders in the area. EXAMPLES: Napoleon, Soult, and Jerome are in an area. Total corps capacity would be 6 (Nappy) + 3 (Soult) for a total of 9 corps. Charles and Kutuzov are stacked with an allied army. 6 (Charles) + 4 (Kutuzov = 10 corps capacity. 2) ONE cavalry corps may always freely stack with other corps at NO penalty. 2a) A cavalry leader allows a # of CAV corps equal to his tactical rating, to stack freely with a stack. This is in addition to all other considerations. 3a) Corps with 10 or less factor capacity count as 1/2 corps for stacking limits purposes (example: Russian 4th inf corps, Bosnian Feudal infantry corps). 3b) Corps with 21 or greater capacity count as 1+ 1/2 corps for stacking limits purposes (example: French Guard corps, Prussian I corps). 3c) Cossacks, Guerrillas and Freicorps may always freely stack with corps at no penalty. 4)Leadership ratings apply. The highest rated leaders in the area must be used for counting corps capacity totals ( we use a special rule which says that Bleucher is promoted to a "B" leader in 1807). 5) Reinforcement: Reinforcing a battle may exceed the corps capacity total for an army. When this happens, a "-1" is applied PER CORPS (1/2 corps count as 1 if reinforcing alone) against the tactical rating of the commander in charge of the battle. Thus if Charles and 6 corps capacity are in an area and reinforced by 2 additional corps capacity, Charles' tactical rating drops from 4 to 2. If Charles were further reinforced the next round with 3 additional corps capacity, Charles' tactical rating would be "0". Once the leading commanders' tactical rating reaches "0", no further reinforcement may take place. If, as a result of reinforcement, more corps are in the area than allowed, the over-stacked corps must retreat IMMEDIATELY to the area they reinforced from. 5a) Exception: If the reinforcing force introduces a new commander that can be counted for maximum corp capacity purposes, the total # of corps allowed is recalculated immediately. Example: Pechlivan Khan and Kushanz Ali are in an area with a total of 6 corps capacity. They are reinforced by the Grand Vizier with 1 corps capacity. Since the Grand Vizier outranks the others, his corps capacity must be used to calculate the total allowed. While this increases the maximum total to 7 corps (and thus no penalty), The Grand Vizier takes command!(Yuck) Thus, leaders used for reinforcing must be used carefully, lest they affect the maximum possible corps and/or take charge of the battle. Still another tactic, which requires some luck, is to form a large army (tempting to the monster stack) under a leader with a high strategic rating. Withdraw each time the monster stack attacks. Eventually, the monster stack will choose escalated assault to get the -1 DRM to your withdrawal roll. If you time it right, you can outflank or defend, probably inflicting severe losses. If optional rule 12.3.1 Supply Limit Per Depot is used, at least the supply of the monster stack will be made more expensive. 3.2 Economic Manipulation Does anyone ever manipulate to lose PP and gain $/MP? Not very often, but it does happen. Generally during a war in which you are likely to recoup some of the loss. 4.0 Rules Questions 4.2.4.2 USING THE NATIONAL CARDS What is kept secret? 2.4.2 specifies that specific corps locations are kept secret and that fleet locations and strengths are public. The wording implies that the strengths of corps are public. However, most people seem to play keeping corps strengths secret as well. 4.4.4.3 CONDITIONAL PEACE: When reparations are chosen, who decides what schedule of payments is used? It was agreed that the rules are unclear. The vote was 3-1 for the loser deciding which schedule of payments to use. *2nd Vote (Dec 1998): 3-2 Victor Are reparations based on the red initial economic value of the loser or on what the loser has remaining? Vote (Dec 1998): 4-1 Initial red economic value In Peace Conditions B1 and C1a, are the "random" choices purely random, i.e. put markers in a cup and draw? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC, 8/30/97: Yes If a loser trades in violation of condition B.6, must the aggrieved party declare war immediately or lose the right? Although the rules are unclear, the vote was 3-0 yes A second vote taken later (April 1998) was split 2-2 If a loser which has had peace condition B.6 imposed subsequently conquers the major power which imposed it, does the condition still apply? The vote here was 2.5-0.5 no. The half-half vote was me. I said that I thought it should not apply after the next war between the powers. However, it could be argued that it applies indefinately, because other peace conditions specifically specify that they only apply until the next war and B.6 does not. My feeling is that this is an oversight, not a design feature, but, in tournament play, I could see how a GM could rule that it applies indefinately. When a corps on loan is chosen, how does the corps get home after its time is up? It is possible for it to be cut off from home by territory through which it has no access. One response said to repatriate the corps per the peace rules. One said to repatriate the corps with a time delay to match the time it would take to get it home. The last response said tough, the corps is dead. Can a corps on loan be reinforced? Since this requires the owner's cooperation with the controller, the consensus was yes. Who gets PP's when a corps on loan is in a battle? Vote (2/99): 2-0 controlling power (not the owning power) If a corps on loan is reinforced, does it revert to the owner's control when it loses half of the factors it originally had, or when its strength is reduced to half of what it originally was? Vote (2/99): 4-2 loss of half of original factors *If the power to whom a corps is loaned is at war with a power who has a corps *in the same area as the newly-loaned corps, what happens? *The vote (10/99) was 5-2 that the newly-loaned corps has one turn to move away. 4.4.4.4 UNCONDITIONAL PEACE If Britain has access via peace condition C.5., can that access be used to trade with Black Sea ports if Turkey closes the Straits to Russia? After a long discussion about whether the trade would be carried on using British or Russian ships, and the rules' mention of ports needing access, the vote was split 4-4. If condition C.6 is chosen by all victors, must they all name the same specific leader to remove? Vote: 6-0 YES If condition C.6 is chosen, may a leader not yet available, ex. Blucher in 1805, be chosen for removal? Vote: (1/99) 21-1 NO 4.4.4.6.1 Prisoner Exchange Do captured cavalry factors return as cavalry? The list seemed to agree that, according to the rules, they do return as cavalry (since there is no mention otherwise). It was also agreed, however, that it would be perfectly reasonable to return them as infantry, since their horses would have been confiscated. Some proposed allowing them to be built back to cavalry for a fee ($5-10$) and a set time period (2 months). 4.4.6 THE MINOR COUNTRY CONTROL STEP If a minor country is controlled by a power which has declared combined movement with the power with which that minor is at war, when does that minor move? According to rule 7.3.8.1, even powers which are combining movement move in a sequence. The minor moves with its controlling power. 4.4.6.3.3 INITIAL STRENGTH FACTORS What are the strengths of minors attacked after they have been conquered and returned to neutrality? According to the rules, these minors have no land forces. One of the designers did write an article in the General (specific reference to follow later) suggesting that the 1805 strengths be used. 4.4.6.5 MAJOR POWER SUPPORT OF CONTROLLED MINOR COUNTRIES How do minors work? This question has been brought up at least 3 times in the 12 months and the only thing that is clear is that we will never agree. Here are the arguments: When a major power declares war on a neutral minor power, is the major power selected to control the minor given full control? This question divides the list into 2 camps, which I'll call the "full" camp and the "separate" camp. The full camp believes that rule 4.6.3.1, which states that the selected major power places a control flag in the minor, indicates that the minor is now a controlled state, just like any other controlled state. The only exception to this is if the selected major power is not at war with the attacking major power. In that case, per 4.6.5.2, certain restrictions are placed on how the selected major power may interact with the minor and/or with the attacking major. Should war ever occur between the two major powers, or war lapse between the minor and the attacking major all restrictions are removed. They argue that rule 4.6.3.1 (prevents separate declarations of war on a newly-controlled minor) corresponds perfectly with rule 4.2.3 (prevents separate declarations on a major power's controlled minors) and shows that the minor is truly "controlled" by the new major power. The separate camp believes that rule 4.6.3.1 allows the selected major power to place a control flag in the minor just so everyone remembers who controls its forces. They point out that rules 4.6.6 (lapse of war) and 7.7 (conquest step) as being the only mentions of peace with a minor in the rules. These, they claim, are therefore the only ways one can make peace with a neutral minor on which war was declared. 4.4.2 also supports this by saying that a minor may never sue for peace. Why would they point this out in the rules if a minor was always controlled by a major power? The list was split as follows: Separate: 4 Full: 16 What exactly can a controlling major power do with the forces of a minor if not at war with the invading major power? And what may other major powers, not at war with the minor but at war with the controlling major power, do to the minor? This is a very complex question not adequately covered in the rules. According to rule 4.6.3.1, the major power selected to control a minor with forces places a free state flag in that minor. This indicates, and is the only indication in the rules, that the minor is now a controlled free state, just as if it had been conquered and freed. However, since the controlling power is not at war with the invading major power, rule 4.6.5.2 lists specific things that the controlling major power can't do, ex. garrison cities in the minor. These two rules have given rise to two schools of thought. The first is that the minor is a true free state, with the specific limitations of 4.6.5.2 imposed. The second is that, since some limitations were imposed, the minor is not a normal free state. The official word from TAHGC supports the first school. Once the minor becomes a controlled free state, it behaves exactly as any other except for the limitations of rule 4.6.5.2. This means that the controlling power could take all of the forces of the minor and attack any power with which he is at war. In addition, any major power at war with the controlling power may now attack the minor without declaring war on it. This ruling makes for some rather complicated results. As such, many people have come up with house rules covering these minors. They generally include the stipulation that, until the controlling major power declares war on the agressor, the minor may only attack the agressor and no major power other than the agressor may attack the minor. Many also include a rule stating that, if the war with the minor lapses, it reverts to neutrality rather than remaining a free state. 4.4.6.5.2 If a major power gains control of a minor via a declaration of war, but does not declare war on the invader, can the controlling power's leaders be sent to lead minor troops? According to 4.4.6.5.2, "If it is not at war...the minor country must be run using only the minor country's own forces,..." Therefore, no. *4.4.8 THE FREE STATE DECLARATION STEP *Can a power free only the major district of a multi-district minor? *Vote (1/00): 5-4 Yes. 4.4.9 THE DECLARATION OF COMBINED MOVEMENT STEP Can 2 powers who are not allied both declare combined movement with a common ally, thereby gaining combined movement with each other? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC: No 4.5.2.2.2.3 Adding factors to corps in supply May reinforcements "cross" uncontrolled territory. For example, if a corps is on a depot that is in a valid supply chain, but the area between that depot and the next depot is an uncontrolled minor, can reinforcements be placed? According the the definition of "valid supply chains" given in 7.2.3.2, intervening uncontrolled territory does not affect the supply chain, therefore the reinforcements can be placed. 4.6.3.1 says states with no forces are marked conquered, states with forces are marked free. The consensus seemed to be that a state with corps fit the definition of a state having forces, whether or not any of those forces actually exisited. Therefore, you would mark the minor as a free state. It was suggested that you use rule similar to the UMP rules to allow neutral minors to build new forces. 4.6 Naval Phase 4.6.2.1.2 Port/Blockade Box Movement What if a fleet enters a blockaded port using its last MP, declines to be intercepted (per 6.2.3.1.2.1), and joins with the fleet already there. May the combined fleet then move to the blockade box and attack? Yes. Rule 6.2.1.2 states that it costs no MPs to move from the port to the blockade box. 4.6.2.1.4 ICE LINE RESTRICTIONS What happens to a fleet which is iced in if the port is captured? Although a strict reading of the rules implies that it can move to the blockade box (6.2.1.4 says you can't move into a sea area and 6.2.6 says you can move to the blockade box), the majority opinion (7-3) was that the wording of the rules was a mistake and the fleet should be scuttled. 4.6.2.2 Naval Stacks If a fleet moves into an area with another fleet of the same nationality and is intercepted, does the intercepting fleet have to attack both fleets? The vote here was 2 to 2. The rule quoted was 6.2.2, which states "A major power's fleets occupying the same port, blockade box, or sea area must always be combined into one 'stack'." 4.6.2.3 NAVAL INTERCEPTION Can a fleet in port intercept an enemy fleet leaving that port's blockade box if that leaves no more blockading fleets? Yes. See rule 6.2.3.1.2.2. 4.6.2.5 Naval Transportation of Army Corps and Leaders Has anyone tried any rules for building transports instead of using fleets? Michael Treasure wrote the following: Naval transports represent ships designed specifically to transport troops. Each major power has the ability to build one naval transport fleet. Naval transports cost $5 and 1 manpower, taking 6 months to build. Each naval transport factor is capable of carrying 1 cavalry factor, or 2 of any other type permitted to be transported by sea. Naval transports must be part of a stack containing heavy or light ships to be able to move and follow the rules of naval transport (see ??). Naval transports do not participate in any form of naval combat. If the stack of which they are a part, participates in combat, they are treated as not being present. The only exception to this is if all other light and heavy ships in their stack become either damaged or sunk, the naval transports (and any passengers) are captured. If the stack of which they are a part, retreats or pursues, the naval transports move with the stack. The question was asked: >Seems fine, And how many transports do the different nations start with in >the different scenarios ?? Michael replied: Humm, haven't quite figured that out yet, probably the best way is to give each country a percentage of its starting navy as additional transports, probably around 10-15%, with France getting a higher percentage at the strart of the 1805 Scenario. I should clarify things, we play with option 12.2.4 which reduces naval transport capacity to 10 factors a fleet, and use the transports to supplement transport capacity, not replace it. The transports are to increase the options available a player who might desire an ability to transport a large force without having to buy the more expensive ships. In games we've played, only France, Russia and Austria have built them, with Britain having no need due to its large number of regular fleets, and relatively small army. The Ottomans have perhaps suffered a little as far as their relative naval capabilities, (due to shortage of money), but the impact has not been great and none of the players perceived it as a major disadvantage. 4.6.2.6 Enemy Control of a Fleet's Port When a fleet is forced to leave a blockaded port which has been captured, and elects to fight the blockading fleet, who is the attacker? This question raised more controversy than any I've seen on the list. The final vote was 6 to 5 in favor of the blockaded fleet being the attacker. Those arguing that the blockaded fleet is the attacker quoted the rule 6.2.6.1 which states that "if desired, the blockaded fleet(s) may choose to fight the blockading fleet(s)..." This, they said, indicated that the blockaded fleet must attack (fight) the blockading fleet. The minority opinion felt that since rule 6.2.3.1.2.3 says "a fleet entering a blockade box may only be intercepted by enemy fleets which currently occupy that blockade box...(and the interception is automatic if attempted)." meant that, in order to attack the blockaded fleets, the blockading fleets must intercept them, making them the attacker. 4.6.2.7 BLOCKADE OF PORTS When can you enter a blockade box? There are 5 cases: 1.Phasing player at war with the controller of the port 2. Enemy fleets in the port 3. Enemy corps in the port with neutral fleets who declared comb. Movement. 4. Enemy fleets in the BB 5. Entering or exiting port Note that this means you can't enter your own unblockaded blockade box. 4.6.3.1.2 WHO IS AN ENEMY How is an attack handled if the attacking side consists of a stack using combined movement and the attackers are not at war with all defenders? First of all, a fleet (even in combined movement) cannot attack a fleet with which it is not at war (see 4.2). If one or more attacking fleets are not at war with at least one defending fleet, they may not participate. Assuming all attacking fleets are at war with one defending fleet: 6.3.1. WHO MAY FIGHT: If enemy fleets of more than one major power occupy a sea area, blockade box or port, only one major power's stack can be attacked (for this purpose, all major powers who have declared combined movement and are at war with the attacker are considered to be one major power). OTHER MAJOR POWERS IN THE SEA AREA, BLOCKADE BOX OR PORT CAN BE IGNORED (EVEN WITH COMBINED MOVEMENT DECLARED, IF NOT AT WAR WITH THE ATTACKER). [emphasis added] Adding the errata to rule 6.3.1.2, we have: "A stack may only attack another stack if at war with the major power owning that stack, if at war with a major power owning corps being (or that could be) transported by fleets of that stack, or if at war with one or more of the fleets involved in combined movement. In the latter two cases, the attacker's stack need not be at war with the major power owning the transporting fleets, and, if not, the attacker has the option to either:" followed by rules 6.3.1.2.1 and 6.3.1.2.2 detailing the two options: Attack without a declaration of war or declare war immediately. The discussion [Jan 1999] hinged on whether the last sentence of 6.3.1 was overridden by the errata-updated 6.3.1.2. 5 respondents said "yes," requiring the attackers to fight the entire stack. 4 respondents said "no," giving the attackers the right to ignore the powers with which they were not at war. *If a stack is intercepted, but not all fleets are attacked, are the non- *attacked fleets affected by the result of the battle, i.e. must they retreat *with a defeated stack? *Vote (11/99): 2-0 Yes 4.6.3.5 Retreats 4.6.3.5.1 Since you can retreat to any port within 7 MPs of the battle, the situation is created where a fleet defeated in battle suddenly has more than 7 MPs. The following house rules were written by Richard Gadsden (richard@tga.u-net.com soon changing to richardgadsden@cix.co.uk) to prevent this: Naval retreats require a fleet after it has lost a battle to withdraw to a friendly port. Fleets must choose a port with the following order of priorities. All ports that are retreated to must not contain enemy land forces and must not be blockaded: 1. A port within the home nation of that major power, within a controlled minor or a ceded province, or the port in which that fleet started the naval movement phase if this was an interception combat. [For Free State fleets, a port within any district of that Free State, plus the originating port for interception combats] 2. A port, not in a province or minor country whose owner the fleet is at war with, that contains a garrison of that major power's land forces, or of a free state's land forces. [For Free State fleets, forces of that Free State] 3. [Free State fleets only; a port within the controlling major power's home nation, other controlled minors or ceded provinces] 4. [Free State fleets only; a port containing controlling major power troops or Free State troops belonging to another Free State] 5. Any other port controlled by an ally of the major power. (an alliance may be revoked to prevent such a retreat) 6. A port controlled by a major power or minor country at war with the controller of the fleet, but which contains troops belonging to the major power whose fleet it is [Free State fleets: Free State troops only] 7. [Free State fleets only: enemy port with major power controlled troops in] Ports within the range of the fleet (7 normally, but may be reduced by the optional rule) are considered first; if there is no port within the seven criteria above, then retreat is to any port on the map; if there is still no eligible port, the fleet is captured in its entirety, with any transported corps. If there is more than one port in the same criterion above, then the nearest port is chosen; if two ports the same distance away are in the same criterion, then the moving player may choose, except that an intercepted fleet must return to its originating port. 4.7.2.1 DEPOT IN A FRIENDLY CITY AREA Can a depot be placed in a controlled city in a ceded home nation province which is not part of a valid supply chain? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC: Yes *4.7.2.3.1 Is a city in a controlled ceded province eligible to be a supply *source? *Vote (10/99) 2-0 No. *4.7.2.3.2 How many open areas may there be between depots in a supply chain? *Vote (8/99): 9-1 for only one open area. The lone dissenter said that two open *areas was permissible for receiving supply, but not for reinforcements. The *list was pretty sure he confused the question with how many open areas can be *between a depot and a supplied corps. *4.7.2.3.3.2 Can corps on loan or controlled minor corps be used to satisfy this *restriction? The vote (7/99) was 6-1 for allowing use of minor corps and 5-2 for allowing use of corps on loan. One who voted no for both was the former AH Answer Man, two used a strict reading of the rule. 4.7.3.3.2 CONVERTING ARMY FACTORS Why shouldn't you be able to keep cavalry/guard in garrisons without converting them to infantry? There was a discussion in Mar. 99 centering around what happened to units on garrison duty. Arguments such as loss of quality from lack of action, loss of horses, etc. were proposed. Finally, it was generally conceded that this was to prevent players from stockpiling masses of specialty troops in garrison during peacetime and being able to completely replace combat losses instantly. 4.7.3.3.3 GARRISON FACTORS If a fleet attacks a port in which the only land forces is a corps small enough to fit in the city, can the port guns be used? This question raises the question "Does a corps in the area constitute a garrison for port gun use/control purposes." Several other rules will have to be quoted to determine this: According to 7.3.3.3, a corps can form part of a garrison. However, 7.3.2.1 says that a corps must cease its movement if it enters an area with an unbesieged enemy corps. This seems to imply that corps are considered outside the city except during sieges. The overwhelming opinion was that, even though the rules do not necessarily support it, it should be considered that a corps in an area with an empty city controls that city. From this you could infer that the port guns could be used. 4.7.3.5 LANDING FROM SHIPS-"DISEMBARKING" A corps boards a ship to be transported from a blockaded port, leaving the port ungarrisoned. The transporting fleet is defeated and must return to port. Since the corps cannot be disembarked until the major power's turn in the Land Phase, can another major power who moves earlier in the land phase enter the port unopposed? Yes. If a corps which landed from ships is defeated in battle, how does it retreat? Per 7.5.2.10.3. Note that 7.5.2.10.3.4 precludes retreating onto the ships. 4.7.3.6.1 UNGARRISONED DEPOT AREA Can you capture and use an enemy depot in the same turn? Yes. Depots are captured during the movement step which is before the supply step. If you capture a depot, it becomes a part of your supply chain (assuming you convert it) before supply is determined. 4.7.4 The Supply Step If a country has a corps in a city area which retires into the city when an enemy corps enters the area, but the enemy corps does not besiege, how is supply handled? If the city is unbesieged and within 2 unblocked areas of a friendly depot, normal depot supply may be used. A depot cannot be placed in the city area, because rule 7.2 states that depots may not be placed in an area containing unbesieged enemy corps. If the corps forages, it uses the AREA's forage value, as stated in rule 7.4.5.2 4.7.4.1.3.2 If a besieging corps is eliminated by forage losses, what happens to any depot that may be in the city area? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC 10/26/98: It remains until removed by the owning player or captured by an enemy corps. 4.7.4.1.2.2 Unused Movement Points If a corps moves to a city area, forages using unused movement point to modify the roll, then wins a field combat, can it besiege the city? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC 10/26/98 No. If unused movement points were used to modify the forage roll, that corps is ineligible to besiege. 4.7.4.1.2.5 What constitutes the "major power's territory" for this rule In the glossary, page 46 of the rule book, major power is defined as home nation plus controlled minor countries plus provinces ceded to that home nation. 4.7.4.2.1 PAYING FOR DEPOT SUPPLY Are supply costs rounded up after summing all total costs? Vote: (3/99) 5-1 yes. NOTE: The no vote, indicating that a single corps on a depot would cost $1 in a non-winter turn, came from the former AH EiA Answer Man. He, however, included no explanation. Can you trace supply through a neutral major power without access? Vote: (5/99) 3-3 *Is there anything you can do if a neutral power supplies your enemy? *Vote: (11/99) 5-0 Nothing other than declare war. 4.7.4.3 Sea Supply Rule 7.4.3.1 requires you to have a fleet in the port that is the supply source. The definitions on the back of the rule book indicate you can have a fleet in either port. Which is correct? Responses were 3-2 for using the looser requirement, i.e. a fleet in either port. *Another vote (10/99): 6-3 for fleet in supply source port *The separate discussion which prompted this vote concerned whether or not a *fleet could provide two separate links in a supply chain. If it is determined *that the fleet must be in the supply source, then this question is moot *otherwise: *The situation that brought this up was: A power has a supply source at port A, *a fleet with a depot at port B, and wants to place a depot at port C. Can the *fleet at port B support a supply line from A to B then from B to C? The no *argument basically ran that it was not logical for a fleet to perform this *function for two different supply lines. No rules backing this position were *found. The yes argument basically stated that there's nothing in the rules *preventing this, so it is legal. *The vote (10/99) was: 4-2 that a fleet could support more than one link 4.7.4.4 Invasion Supply Can you build a depot on a fleet which just transported a corps? There were 4 responses to this: 3 said yes, 1 said no Can you build a depot on a fleet in a blockade box? es, but it can only supply the port area, 2 no If a fleet with a depot is already in a sea area, can another power build a depot on a fleet? Vote: (3/99) 3-1 yes. The dissenting vote quoted 7.2 stating that no depot may be built in an area already containing a depot. 4.7.4.4.1 Can depots be built both on the fleet and in the port supporting the invasion supply during the same turn? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC: Yes The list vote was 3-2 against being able to do this. In addition, one of the "yes" votes was based on the official ruling. 4.7.4.5 Besieged Supply If a city is besieged, and a relieving force arrives the same turn the garrison starves and declares an attack, can the besieging force retire into the city? Rule 7.3.1.4 FORAGING WHILE MOVING says that foraging occurs during the movement phase. Rule 7.4.5 says that besieged cities use the foraging method for supply. Rule 7.5.1.1 reads "any forces upon whom an attack is declared may immediately retire..." Rule 7.3.7.1 says each newly arriving corps must stop and declare an attack. From this, we see that the decision to withdraw occurs immediately upon an enemy corps entering the area. The forage die roll occurs some time during the movement phase, but it is not clear when. If the owning player can decide (not specifically covered in the rules), then he can wait until all corps have moved, preventing the besiegers from retiring into the city. There were a couple of people on the list who disagreed, but did not give any rules quotations to back their position. *Another discussion (2/00) voted 5-1 to support the previous conclusion. *However, it was noted that rule 7.4.5.2 allows the corps to detach factors to *control the city. If a garrison is made up of corps and garrison factors, how many foraging die rolls are made? All replies, including 1 who reported asking TAHGC, said one die roll for the entire garrison. If a corps is used as a garrison, does it need to be supplied? The consensus was yes. 4.7.5.1.1 Defender Retirement into City When must a defending corps announce whether it is inside or outside of a city? Undisputed: Rule 7.3.7.1 states that whenever a corps enters an area with an enemy corps it must stop moving and declare an attack. Rule 7.5.1.1 states that any force which has an attack declared upon it may retire into a friendly city. Disputed: One school of thought holds that, since 7.3.2 states that each counter is moved individually, a defending corps gets a new chance to retire into the city each time an enemy corps enters its area. Therefore, a corps could stay outside the city, hoping to delay more corps, and attempt to withdraw when the last one has arrived. This tactic risks that the last corps may arrive before you thought, catching your corps outside the city. A subgroup of this school thinks that the defender only gets one chance to withdraw - when the first enemy corps arrives. The other school of thought holds that once a corps has declared that it is outside the city, it may not change its mind. While not conforming to the letter of the rules, this solution is held to be more "logical" by many. The "new-choice each time an enemy corps enters area" school had 5 adherants, the "choose when first enemy corps enters area" school had 2, and the "choose at the end of the movement phase" school had 4. One list-reader stated that he had talked to Harry Rowland (one of the designers) at a convention. Harry said that the first interpretation i.e., the defender gets a new choice every time an enemy corps enters the area, was correct. 4.7.5.2.1 Selection of Chits May a leaderless stack of corps select "outflank," using the intrinsic corps ratings? No. 7.5.2.1 specifically states that the outflank chit may only be chosen if a force contains at least 2 non-artillery corps and a leader. NOTE: One response felt that rule 12.3.7.1 was meant to supplant rule 7.5.2.1, so, if the option were used, the corps could pick outflank. In note G on the Operational Possibilities Chart, it says that the "final morale level" of a force is increased by 1 if commanded by a Russian leader. Does this mean that the force's morale is increased, or the morale level of the Combat Results Table (i.e. 3-1 goes to 3-2)? Vote (6/99): 9-1 for increasing the force's morale *Must a force be commanded by a named leader to get the extra benefits from *certain Operational Possibilities Chart notes or is an intrinsic corps commander sefficient? *Vote: 10/99 - 4-1 that a named leader must be present By the way, one lister responded that the original ADG rules used "demoralisation level" for a force's morale level and that is the term which was found on the OPC. David Bofinger (David.Bofinger@dsto.defence.gov.au) did a statistical analysis of the CRT. Here are his findings: I thought I'd try fitting a linear function to them, and see what conclusions I could draw. The fit is reasonably good, it's worst at the ends (1-1 and 5-5) as you'd expect. Morale is out by about 0.1 per round at those extremes, casualties by about 0.5% per round. I was surprised to find that using a linear-in-a-power-of fit didn't improve things much. (Or else that I stuffed up that modification, I'll check later.) These are all a bit provisional, I'm posting partly because I wondered if anyone else had done this. I may retract these when I find the errors. :-) The expected casualties inflicted in three rounds is: ( -6.5 + 3.2 D + 2.6 C + 1.3 M )% The expected morale loss inflicted in three rounds is: ( -0.56 + 1.17 D + 0.25 C + 0.50 M) Where: D = die roll modifier C = sum of casualty tables. e.g. 3-1 + 3-1 + 2-1 => C = 8. M = sum of morale loss tables. e.g. above, M = 3. A morale table improvement is worth two casualty table improvements wrt inflicting morale loss. (Sounds right.) A casualty table improvement is worth two morale table improvements wrt inflicting casualties. (Sounds right.) Given a +1 DRM to make a morale 3.3 army break requires a total C+2M >= 15 (for a 50% chance in three rounds). This is impressively small and gives a feeling of just how nasty an army with Nappy on top can be. Given a +0 DRM to make a morale 4.0 army break requires a total C+2M >=23 (for a 50% chance in three rounds). Which shows French staying power. A +1 drm is worth an increase of ~14% in casualties inflicted and +1.17 morale. (If the battle goes three rounds.) A 14% increase in the ability to inflict losses can be thought of as a 7% improvement in battle capability. Defenders in the mountains suffer only 2/3 the casualties of defenders in the clear. (Bigger difference than I'd expect.) Committing the guard +1 inflicts an extra 1.3%, +2 an extra 2.6%. 4.7.5.2.7 STEP SEVEN-FIND COMBAT TABLES Do the benefits for certain tactical matchups on the Operational Possibilities Chart only apply to forces with a named leader? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC, 8/30/97: Yes *A vote (9/99) was: 4-3 agreeing with TAHGC 4.7.5.2.7.2 Outflanking Tables To Use If the 2nd set of tables is listed as follows: Round 1 2 3 Table - A B and the outflanking force arrives on the third round, do you use A (being for the first outflanking round) or B (for round 3 outflanking)? The only response (mine by the way) was that B should be used as it is for round 3, regardless of when the outflanking force arrived. 4.7.5.2.8 STEP EIGHT-GUARD AND ARTILLERY USE (OPTIONAL) Do leaders modify artillery die rolls? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC: No 4.7.5.2.10.1.1 Breaking *If all of the cavalry on a side is in the outflanking force, must the side lose *a cavalry factor in the turn the pinning force breaks? *Vote (12/99): 9-3 No. Rules 7.5.2.3.2 ("are not included for combat purposes") *and 7.5.2.10.1.2.2 ("any excess casualties...go to the outflanking force") *imply that, barring the elimination of the pinning force, combat casualties *during a round may not be taken from the outflanking force. Since the cavalry *loss is taken during a combat round, the cavalry requirement is not fulfilled. 4.7.5.2.10.1.3 Political Point gains/losses from combat with combined forces How do you distribute PP's to allies who won/lost combats while there forces were combined? From the back of the rule book (emphasis added): -1/2 PP: Lost by the loser for each of HIS corps participating... +1/2 PP: Gain by the victor for EACH corps participating... This seems to agree with the article "Grand-and Grandiose-Strategy" by Bruce Milligan, found in Vol. 23 No. 4 of the Avalon Hill General. Milligan talks about contributing one or two corps to a battle so that you can gain full PP's if you win, but lose only 1 if you lose. 4.7.5.2.10.3 Retreat after Losing a Combat Can you really retreat through enemy corps with no adverse effects? According to the rules, yes, but many of us on the list think this is not realistic. What happens if you are forced to retreat, have no depots on the map, and your capital is enemy-occupied? According to rule 7.5.10.2.3.1, "All retreats must be into an adjacent land area that is closest...to the nearest depot...or...towards that force's nearest controlled national capital city." Rule 7.5.2.10.3.6 states "A force must surrender...if no retreat route is available." Therefore according to a strict reading of the rules, if there is no depot on the map and the capital is enemy-occupied, the force must surrender. However, the vast majority (10-3) felt that the designers did not intend this and that any adjacent land area of the victor's choice should be allowed. If a Spanish force marches to Gibralter, engages a British corps in a field battle outside the city, and wins, can the British retreat into Spain? According to the retreat rules, yes. About half of the respondents thought this was pretty silly. House rules were suggested forcing the British to retreat into the city, surrendering any excess factors. Others thought this favored Britain too much. 4.7.5.2.11 STEP ELEVEN - REINFORCING ATTEMPTS Does a reinforcing corps need to have any movement points remaining? The unanimous answer, including the former Avalon Hill answer man was, "No." 4.7.5.2.13.1 Withdrawing After A "Day" of Combat If only one side withdraws after a complete day of combat, i.e., neither side breaks or is eliminated, are political points awarded? The vote was 5-0 that no political points should be awarded. Is there any pursuit when a side withdraws after a day's combat? The vote was 2-0 that if only one side withdraws, that side can be pursued. Rationale: Rule 7.5.2.10.2 states that pursuit can be launched "when a side breaks..." However, rule 7.5.2.10.2.1 lists an exception to using the pursuit table concerning pursuit of a force withdrawing unbroken after a day's combat. Rule 7.5.2.13.1 says there is no pursuit when both sides. 4.7.5.4 Sieges What happens if the besieger assaults a city and both forces break? Although no definitive answer was found, the following was the consensus: Rule 7.5.4.1.3.4: "If the besieger loses or does not win (break or eliminate) the defenders) within three rounds, the siege is resumed..." Extrapolating from rule 7.5.2.10.4.2 (Unusual Field Combat Results - Both Break), which, admittedly, does not apply here, the beseiger did not win, therefore the siege continues. 4.7.5.4.1 Political Points For Siege Assault Combat Winners Who gets the political points when a multinational force assaults a fortress or city with a corps garrison? The vote was 4-0 in favor of all powers with forces in the attack. 4.7.5.4.1.2.3 Breach May Spanish/Turkish forces surrender? Vote (5/99) 6-0 Yes 4.7.5.4.1.2.3.3 Assault Is it realistic for an army to use huge numbers of factors in an assault? How would all of those soldiers get to the breach? The list was about evenly divided: 1. Limit the number of assaulting factors to one or two times the city garrison capacity 2. Leave it alone - even though only some may actually participate, having extra soldiers allows multiple breaches to be exploited at the same time, stretching the defender. 4.7.7 The Conquest Step What if 2 allied major powers occupy a minor country capital at the exact same instant? Who gets control in the conquest step? Note: This answer applies to any two powers not at war, not just allies. Even in combined movement, powers still move in an order see 7.3.8.1). Whoever moves first may occupy the capital by detaching a garrison (or having a corps be a garrison). If no garrison was left, the power moving last may detach a garrison, controlling the city. If a garrison WAS left, the power moving last may besiege the city (7.5.4 allows a power to besiege any city in enemy-controlled territory) Since the two powers are allied, the garrison is neutral to the besieger. Therefore, by 10.3.3, the garrison must surrender. Suppose a country is at the top of the Dominant Zone and, during the Conquest Step, she is due to receive control of one minor and lose control of another. If you grant the +1PP first and the -1PP second, she loses 1PP. If you take away the -1PP first and grant the +1PP second, she stays the same. What is the correct method? The consensus was that you should add up all conquest step awards/debits before applying the result. In this case +1, -1 would result in a net change of 0. 4.8.2.1.2 Money Collection by Trade May Great Britain choose to trade with some ports in a country and refuse to trade with other ports in that country? The rules are unclear. 8.2.1.2 says that Great Britain may trade with any eligible ports. 8.2.1.2.1 says "when an eligible port does trade." This seems to indicate that Great Britain may choose to trade with only selected ports in a country. This method is supported by Bruce Milligan in his article in Vol. 23 No. 4 of the General. Many players, however, require that Great Britain trade with all or no ports in a country. 4.8.2.1.2.5 May a major power conduct American trade if its capital is occupied? Vote: (3/99) 3-1 No. 4.8.3 THE LENDING MONEY STEP Can the existence or amount of a loan be kept secret? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC, 2/15/98 It may be kept secret, but I would advise a paper trail for any questions that might pop up later, during your after game wrap-up. 4.8.5.3 EXPENDITURE ON FORCES Is the number of ships being built public knowledge? Although historically, it was probably possible to keep track of how many ships were under construction, the two responses felt that, according to the rules, ship building is not public knowledge. 4.10.1.2 COSSACKS AND FREIKORPS If a power has only cossacks or freikorps present in a battle, are they eligible to receive PP's for a victory? Although the rules are unclear, the consensus was "yes" 4.10.1.2.1.1 How many Cossacks can you place per levy phase? This rule could be interpreted either as 1 Cossack per phase or 1 Cossack per C province per phase. The readers were almost evenly split as to which interpretation was correct. Later vote (7/99) was 5-0, including the former AH Answer Man, for allowing placement of enough Cossacks to bring the total up to the maximum allowed. 4.10.1.3 TURKISH FEUDAL TROOPS Can Turkish feudal infantry set up anywhere during initial setup, or only in their home provinces? All 7 respondents agreed that 14.1.4 allows placement anywhere. 4.10.1.3.1 Can Turkish feudal corps be brought back to strength in December when an enemy garrisson factor occupies the provincial capital? This rule states "This may not be done if that province contains an unbesieged enemy corps, if it is controlled by another major power or..." Control is defined in the glossary as "A currently unceded home nation province or province currently ceded to that major power unless that province's capital city is occupied by unbesieged enemy factors." Therefore, an unbesieged garrison in the province's capital would prevent the levy of that province's feudal corps. *Rule 10.1.3.2 says that feudal corps returned from standing down may not move *in the turn they are placed. Does this apply to the December levy step? *Vote (11/99): No, 10.1.3.2 is a separate rule 4.10.1.3.2 STANDING DOWN FEUDAL CORPS What happens to a Turkish leader when all corps with which he is stacked are feudal and all stand down? According to rule 10.6, a player may not voluntarily cause his leader to become unstacked. If a Turkish leader is stacked only with feudal corps, they may not all stand down. It should be noted, however, that rule 10.6 also says that leaders which become unstacked due to foraging losses or disbanding are removed from the map and may be returned during any later reinforcement step. Disbanding, unfortunately, is not defined. It could include standing down. 4.10.1.3.3 RETURNING FEUDAL CORPS THAT STAND DOWN Rule 10.1.3.3.1 reads "A feudal corps...may only be placed back on the map...if that home province does not contain an unbesieged enemy corps or is not controlled by another major power." Does this mean that to prevent placement, an enemy must gain control of the corps' home province and keep an unbesieged corps in it? Malcolm Anderson quoted the original ADG rules in which the "or" was an "and". Therefore, either of the two conditions prevented replacement. This is probably an editorial error on TAHGC's part. Do feudal corps pay for supply or forage the same turn they stand up? OFFICIAL ANSWER FROM TAHGC: No 4.10.1.3.3.2 Feudal Corps supply after placement The question was asked, can the Turkish feudal corps use unused movement points to modify a forage roll on the turn in which they are placed, since this rule says they can't move? The list seemed to agree that forcing the feudal corps to forage in 2 forage areas was a hardship not intended by the designers. All either allowed the use of movement points or said they don't force feudals to supply at all in their turn of placement. 4.10.1.4 AUSTRIAN INSURRECTION CORPS What do you do if the Austrian places his insurrection corps in an area containing corps of two different nations, both of which are at war with Austria and with each other? The rules have no clear resolution to this question. The vote was: 2 for the moving corps (which triggered placement of the insurrection corps) must fight both enemy corps 1 for the insurrection corps must fight both enemy corps. 4.10.2.1 THE CONQUEST OF MINOR COUNTRIES If a minor capital is captured through a siege, when does "occupation" start for the purpose of conquest of the minor? There are two cases here: garrison eliminated by forage losses or garrison eliminated through assault combat. For forage losses, see rule 7.4.5.2 which states "If all the besieged army factors are lost, ...the besieging forces may immediately detach factors to control..." Therefore, control begins immediately. For assault combat, a strict reading of the rules does not allow detachment of factors to occupy a city during the combat phase. The only times this is allowed are 1) during the reinforcement phase, 2) during the movement phase, 3) during defender retirement into a city, and 4) when a garrison is eliminated by foraging loses. Therefore, you control the city, but do not occupy if until your next turn. It should be noted that a large group considers this ridiculous and implements a house rule allowing immediate detachment of factors after a successful assault. If a corps occupying a minor capital fights a field combat in the area (thereby leaving the city), does that turn count for the one month's unbesieged control? This question raises the question "Does a corps in the area constitute a garrison for port gun use/control purposes." Several other rules will have to be quoted to determine this: According to 7.3.3.3, a corps can form part of a garrison. However, 7.3.2.1 says that a corps must cease its movement if it enters an area with an unbesieged enemy corps. This seems to imply that corps are considered outside the city except during sieges. The overwhelming opinion was that, even though the rules do not necessarily support it, it should be considered that a corps in an area with an empty city controls that city. From this you could infer that the port guns could be used. 4.10.3 Forces in Other Countries - Access If a major power captures the port of another major power and garrisons it, can it allow a third major power's fleet to enter that port, if the third major power is not at war with the power whose port was captured? Ex. France captures Barcelona and leaves a garrision. Can France allow the Turkish fleet to enter Barcelona? According to rule 10.3.1.2, "A major power may only move through another major power's territory with that major power's permission...or...if at war with that major power or if peace condition C.5 applies." Since the province containing the port has not been ceded, the major power who owns the province decides who may or may not enter the ports there, even if the port is presently occupied. This represents the fact that a major power would consider it an unfriendly act, and possibly an act of war for another major power with whom it was not at war sailed a fleet into an enemy occupied port. The minority opposing view (the vote was 8 to 4) felt that the fleet could enter the port. 4.10.3.1.2.1.2 Return Access Why does this rule exist? The consensus seems to be that there is no reason for this rule. Major powers could include a return access clause in the original agreement if they wish. Including this rule creates strange situations, such as Turkey allowing a Russian fleet to leave the Black Sea, then being forced to allow its return. *4.10.3.2.1 *If corps in an area find themselves at war, must they immediately fight? *Vote (1/00) was tied 4-4. 4.10.3.4 Forcible Access Does forcible access negate enforced peaces? Since the prohibition against declaring war on a country in which you have forces is specifically mentioned, and no others are, it is believed that all other restrictions, including enforced peaces, are ignored. The former AH Answer Man agreed with this ruling. 4.10.4.1.2 If an insurrection corps must retreat, and the nearest depot is outside of it's allowed provinces, is it stood down? Vote: 3/99 4(including former AH EiA answer man) to 1 that the corps may choose to retreat to another depot within allowed areas. 4.10.6.3 LEADER CAPTURE If a leader accompanies a force attempting to relieve a siege, and his force is eliminated in combat, but the besieged force survives, what happens to him? He is captured by the besieging side. 4.11 NEW POLITICAL COMBINATIONS Can a power form a required new political combination and declare dominance in the same turn? No. 11.8.1 states that a power must "reach" the New Political Combinations Step in control of the territories needed for dominance. The former AH EiA official answer man agreed. When a province of a new political combination is conquered, what happens to its forces? According to 10.2.1.1, the minors corps and garrisons are eliminated and fleets are removed. As for garrisons of combinations containing more than one province with corps, it's anybody's guess how you split them up. Perhaps using the ratio of manpower values for each such province would work. 4.11.2 The Kingdom of Italy Historically, the Kingdom of Italy consisted of Lombardy, Venetia, and Romagna and did not include the Papacy or Illyria (although someone thought that Trieste was attached). *4.11.6.2 USING THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE *May Ottoman factors be freely exchanged between corps? *Vote (1/00) 3-0 yes 4.11.8 Achieving or losing Dominant Power Status If France or Great Britain lose dominant power status, to regain it, do they have to regain control of 6 of the seven required territories, or only 2 of the seven? Rule 11.8.1 states that France and Great Britain may regain dominant power status by being "in control of the territories needed to avoid the loss of dominant status." This means that they need only control 2 of the seven required territories. 4.11.8.1 ACHIEVING OR LOSING DOMINANT POWER STATUS In the 1792 scenario, does France need to gain 6 or 2 of the 7 dominant power territories to become dominant, i.e. is France gaining or regaining dominance. The vote was nearly unanimous (7-1) that France is gaining dominance for the first time, and, therefore, must control 6 of the 7 territories. For those countries which have to form a new political combination in order to meet their dominance requirements, can they form that combination and declare dominance in the same step? No. Rule 11.8.1 says that a nation must "reach the New Political Combinations Step...at peace...and in control of certain territories." Therefore, dominance is determined as the first step in the New Political Combinations Step, before any new political combinations are declared. 4.11.9.1.1 Restrictions on Territorial Losses The question was asked: Do provinces added to a new political combination count against the 3-province maximum loss? The specific example given was Russia voluntarily ceding provinces to create Poland. There were only 3 responses to this question. Two agreed that the rules do not actively cover this and a house rule must be imposed. Both also thought that voluntarily ceded provinces do not count against the limit. The third response felt that the 3-province limit was an absolute. If Poland is conquered, all provinces which were part of Poland are owned by the conqueror. The poster felt that this meant they should be counted. He, however, made the distinction that this only applied to Poland because, other combinations are conquered on a province by province basis. 4.11.9.2.2 START AT WAR What happens if France or Britain surrenders to the other plus other powers and the other powers involved refuse to agree to the mandatory peace conditions? The votes were 3 for no one gets a peace, 2 for France/Britain doesn't get their peace, and 1 for France/Britain get to choose their required conditions first, then everyone else goes. A second vote, taken in Nov. 1998, was 3-0 that only Fr and/or GB don't get their peace. *3rd Vote (Sep 1999): 7-0 for only Fr or GB don't get their peaces. 3 listers *thought the rule stupid and that peace should occur anyway. Do the peace restrictions apply only to the first peace between Fr/GB Vote (Dec 1998): 3-0 NO 4.12.2.1.1 CHANNEL ARROW Opinions: Pro- 5, Con - 2 Arguments: Pro - forces Britain to keep a Channel Fleet, which she did historically. Need to include requirement for French to have a fleet there to use it, simulating the clearing of the Frigates, etc. which would have stopped a crossing. Con - crossing the 22 mile Channel is quite different from crossing the <5 miles between Danish islands. Simply too difficult to do. 4.12.2.3.3 Large fleets Is it reasonable to reduce a fleets movement allowance based on how many fleets it started the turn stacked with, rather than how many fleets are moving together? The only explanation for this concerned fleets starting in a port. It takes a lot longer to get a fleet out of a crowded port than it does to get one out of a vacant port. Therefore, basing the movement penalty on the number of fleets which begin in the port is reasonable. No backup was given for fleets which start the turn at sea. *4.12.3.7.3 Napoleon's Ratings *Quibble: *If Napoleon deteriorates with time, why not anyone else? Massena was *burnt out after 1809, Kutusov died, Charles was cast out politically, and *so on. Why is the big bad ogre the only one to be penalized for aging? * Why does Berni get to be crown prince of Sweden if he never fights the *Swedes in 1805? There are a lot of broad assumptions made about many of *these guys. *Reply: *At the very least I don't that his strategical genius was diminished. Surely *his strategic campaign plan for the 100 days and 1813/1814 was as good as *ever and far better than the allies. Tactically he left it more to the *marshalls (particularly the also rans - Ney etc) and paid the price. *Clearly his health was worse than earlier campaigns and he was firmly in a *state of illusion and meglomania with regard to his political judgement. *However I would argue his strategic ability was as good as ever. *IF you do go down that route then most of the bad leaders (such as Brunswick *(1806), Mack and Alexander) should have far more negative effect of their *troops chances than they do with alomost random tactics, bizzare strategic *decisions and brittle morale...... *Another reply: *I would also suggest that a lot of the differences between Napolean's *earlier successes and his later medocrity had a lot to do with having *to face more talented opponents over time. The Brunswicks, Hoenloes (sp?), *and Macks that made him look so good in the early going got canned (died *in some cases), and were replaced by smarter successors who were better *at learning the lessons of the earlier predessessor's failures. By 1812, *Napolean just couldn't find any opponents like Mack that he could run his *army around a couple of times and spook into surrendering. *4.12.4 Peace Treaty Limited Access *Can a fleet sail in to pick up an evacuating corps under this option? *Vote (10/99): 3-1 No. 4.12.7 Leader casualties There was a discussion on the list about the effects of leader casualties. Only one person thought that a 1 in 216 chance of a leader dying was too low. He played that an 11 or 12 caused a casualty, instead of just a 12. There were various suggestions made to compensate a country whose best leader (Napoleon, Charles, Blucher, etc.) died. One, applicable to France only, was to allow the "Dominant Power Leader Increase." Others suggested a table on which players would roll up a new leader to replace a casualty. One example was: strat/tac rate die roll 1 1-2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 Corps rating = die roll One strategy for countries with excess bad, low-ranking leaders, is to stack them with your good leader. Since only one, randomly chosen, leader in a stack gets wounded, they can "take a bullet" for him. Some people use a house rule making Nelson a more likely casualty. One method is to have Nelson wounded on a roll of 11 or 12, instead of just 11. The theory behind this is that Nelson was known for leading from the front. Others disputed that this should make it more likely for him to be wounded, since several land commanders were also known for leading from the front. Ney, Lannes, and Bagration were mentioned. This argument was countered by saying that, although some generals were more agressive than others, they did not remain at the front of their troops until they closed with the enemy. Rather, they started the advance and then fell back. British admirals, on the other hand, were placed on the ship in the front of the line, leading the attempt to close with the enemy. They also could not fall to the rear, as the generals did. Why is Nelson in the game when, historically, he was killed 9 months into the 11 years represented? Some players require that Nelson be removed sometime early in the game. A warning was made against this, however. Nelson does not necessarily represent only the physical admiral. He may also represent Britain's dominance of the sea during the period. Removing him too early may unbalance the game. 4.14.2 The Selection of Major Powers The table below lists the average winning bids for each major power. This average was calculated using winning bids picked up from ftf play, game descriptions on the net, and bids sent to me by readers of the list. Averages were not calculated for the last major power assigned, unless that power was Turkey, to keep from skewing averages with "1" bids. Before calculating the average, the maximum and minimum bids were thrown out to get rid of high bids submitted to get a specific country. GB - 30.45 Fr - 34.45 Ru - 26.05 Au - 11.28 Pr - 5.82 Sp - 5.47 Tu - 3.00 A complaint about the bid system was that a player, knowing that the majority of games end before 1815, might bid ridiculously high for a country to ensure playing that country, not worrying about winning. To prevent this, Brian G. used a rule by which players bid economic phase dollars. This bid is deducted from the money received during economic phases. Each power has 4 quarters in which to pay off the bid. If it fails, it must remove troops whose cost is equal to the amount it is short. 4.14.3 UMPs Do you bid for UMPs before the start of the 1805 game? Rules are not quite clear about this, but the example given in rule 14.3.1.1 describes a bid for UMPs after selection of major powers. If a controlling major power goes into the instability/fiasco zone, does its UMP lose control of its minors? The vote was split 2-2. The other option was that the controlling power loses control of the UMP. 4.14.8.4 Initial Forces Setup (1792 Scenario) Russia and Spain are listed as having no cavalry. Is this correct? Readers of this list have said that errata exists which states that Russia starts with 10C and Spain with 6C, but no source has yet been sited. In the rules, Charles is listed to be used "as is" with strategic rating reduced to 4. His strategic rating is already 4. What's the deal? Some believe his strategic rating should actually be reduced to 3. 5.0 Loophole Tactics NOTE: I make no determination as to whether these tactics are honorable or not. They are merely things seen in past games. They are presented here so that you can use them or prevent their use, as you see fit. 5.1 Sieges Friends can manufacture political points in the following way: One country garrisons his border fortresses with 1i or 1m. The other country declares war, and captures the fortresses through siege assault, getting 1 PP per fortress. He then evacuates the city, which is reoccupied by the owner. This continues until the besieger has gained a sufficient number of PPs. The countries then make an informal peace and switch jobs. 5.2 Peace Conditions If you anticipate a war, a friend can declare war on you first. If you are forced to surrender, the friend can choose one of the worst peace conditions to make sure your enemies don't. If already at war, this tactic can be used to make sure that your best leader is not removed (as that choice has to be unanimous). A house rule used by some states that powers who get an unconditional surrender always get first pick before powers with a conditional surrender even though the power(s) with the conditional were at war first. In the event of only unconditional surrenders the dates still decide. 5.3 Using access treaties to enforce agreements Rule 10.3.1.2.2 gives a method to enforce agreements between nations, if one is willing to give the other access. According to the rule, the granting nation can set up any conditions, which MUST be obeyed. 5.4 Leaders Have a leader with a great tactical/strategic rating? Your ally has a cavalry leader whose not as good, but outranks the good leader? Try this: Put the good leader with most of the allied corps. Leave the cavalry leader in an adjacent area with one or more corps. When the battle starts, the good leader is in command. After the cavalry leader reinforces, rule 10.6.1.1.3 states that the reinforcing leader takes command only "if from the same major power as the present commander..." Therefore, your good leader leads the battle and you have a cavalry leader available for pursuit. 5.5 Corps on loan A generally frowned on, but legal tactic is to put the corps on loan in some predicament to ensure it's destruction, such as sailing it out to sea or sitting in a 0 forage value area. 5.6 Using allies with an enforced peace with your enemies to split them up. If two countries are allied and using combined movement, and at least one of them has an enforced peace with at least one country with which the other ally is at war, move the ally with the enforced peace first in combined movement. All enemies with enforced peaces will be forced to withdraw from the battle according to 7.3.8.3 and 7.3.8.4. 6.0 Miscellaneous Topics 6.1 Additional rules 6.1.1 Increasing Turkey's power One group proposed the use of the following rules to make Turkey more powerful: 1. Turkish guard. The Janissary corps have 2 factors of 5.0 guard and 2 factors of 4.0 cavalry in each corps. These guard are similar to the English in that they cannot be committed. 2. An additional cavalry corps. In addition, both corps were increased to 8 cavalry factors. 3. An artillery corps. Similar to the French and Russian. I don't know how large the corps would be. They cited the fact that Turkey had an artillery corps, albeit an old outdated one, that was created, officered, and run by the French. The consensus on the list was that this would unbalance the game and it was very ahistorical. The Janissaries were an outdated force. Some said that even a 3.0 morale was too high. In addition, most Turkish artillery was 50 years old or worse! *Another attempt: *1. Feudal corps all can have maximum 6FI, 3FC. Every Feudal province has 10 *feudal factors (Anatolia has 40 as I am suggesting to give 4 corps to *Anatolia.) These factors can be used in corps or can be used to garnison their *home province. Once in a year these factors can be levied into its own Feudal *corps. *2. Every December economic phase a province's total Feudal army automatically *raised into its maximum. If Serbia corp has 3FI, 2FC and 3FI also garnisons *Belgrad. 2 new Serbian FI will be put in Serbia. To total 10 Feudal factors. *Later in the new year when Serbia corp return to Serbia. They can absorp its *own feudal garnison factors into corp and add 1 of them as FC as there is a *open cavalry space. (That levying into corp can be done 1 a year as mentioned *above.) *3. Introduce Basibozuk (means undiciplined in Turkish) cavalry factors into *game. These are raider units which has many similarities with Cossacks. There *is no Basibozuk provinces. They are raised only if Turkey is at war with a *major power. 2 Basibozuk units can be raised every Levy step upto maximum 6 in *any Turkish controlled home province. *4. Janissaries are 2,5 morale infantry. *5. Let Turkey have militia. *6. Nizam-i Cedid is a mounted infantry corp (movement 5). Has maximum 5I, 1C. *Morale 3,0. Nizam- Cedid corp can not absorb factors. Any detached infantry *factor is now 2,5 morale infantry and treated as Janissaries They can not be *later absorbed into Nizam-I Cedid. *7. Use 3 Janissary corps (15 I/M) and 2 cavalry corps (6C). *8. Only Grand Vizier can command more than 3 regular army corps at a time. *9. Suggested 1805 start strength for Turkey is. *5 NI (Nizam-i Cedid Infantry), 30I, 40M, 12C. *Infantries are Janissaries which are following military drills. Militias are *every type of irregular formation paid by Imperial government. Infantry - *Militia numbers are just guesses. Noone knows how many Janissaries existed only *at paper (these kinds of frauds were common) and the numbers of irregular *formations. *10. Add Armenia to Feudal provinces. Raise Anatolia Feudal corps to 4. *11. The city of Tiran is a 2 spire city. *12. +1 Bonus to Turkish morale in siege battles. (In those years Feudal lords *were in constant war between themselves and central government. The troops were *very experienced in small unit actions and street to street fighting.) *13. Armies who has only Feudal forces receive -1 penalty to breach rolls. *(Feudal lords usually do not possess large cannons.) 6.1.2 Veterans Some people have experimented with rules to create veteran units from regulars or milita after a successful battle. One suggested paying $5 to get a +1 morale. This idea didn't receive much discussion. Some felt it was adding a rule for no good reason and that the benefits far outweighed the costs. In addition, since France is nearly always fighting, any promotion system would probably favor them. 6.1.3 Screening Corps A tactic used to block the advance of an enemy army is to put numerous 1 SP corps in its path. The army, regardless of size, must stop when it enters the corps' area. It it realistic for a 1m corps to stop Napoleon and 6 corps? This question comes up often on the list. Some think that optional rule 12.3.10 OVERWHELMING COMBAT takes care of this. John Yonker pointed out that we may not really know how much an army would be slowed by a small detachment. Approaching, the army would not know there were only 1000 militia facing them. They might deploy and advance cautiously, only then realizing the light resistance (see accounts of Quatre Bras). who knows how much time would be lost. However, many people have house rules they use to prevent this tactic. From Bruce Wilson (bawilson@ozemail.com.au): 1. Corps can surrender before the days battle or at the end (not during a day though) however pp are won and lost as per a resolved battle. 2. Factors can be "overrun" (yes poor expression but it fits the bill) at odds of 5:1 but the overrunning force is required to leave a pinning force (minimum of 5 times the defenders size - cav count as 3 factors for this purpose). 3. Again a side may reinforce a battle if the 5:1 pinning ratio is satisfied. 6.1.4 Advanced Naval Rules The Advanced Naval Rules from the General seem to generate two opinions: either you love them and think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, or you hate them and wouldn't use them to line your pet bird's cage. Pro-argument: 1. Naval battles have more to them than just attrition and the side with the most ships doesn't necessarily have the advantage. Morale makes a difference (by the way, even proponents suggest lowering British morale to 3.5 instead of 4.0). 2. It is more accurate to take losses as hulks because Ships of the Line were extremely hard to sink, and the victorious side had the option to pick up surviving enemy hulks. 3. The addition of naval tactics makes the game more realistic. 4. It is possible to run blockades. Anti-argument: 1. They exacerbate the problem of British dominance. Sure, the British really did win all the time, but who's to say that had to be the way. It's possible to defeat Napoleon, so it should be possible to defeat Nelson. One player pointed out that Britain could go down to an attrition attack by a naval coalition, but be left with lots of hulks because they won most of the battles. By surrendering, they gain the time and peace required to rebuild those hulks and come back with twice as big a fleet. 2. Port raids give an extreme advantage to the attacker. Many think this not historically accurate. After a British raid on Copenhagen in 1801, they had so much trouble that when they came back in 1807, they landed the army. Modifications that have been made by players: 1. Reduce British morale to 3.5 2. You don't get a victory unless you both break the enemy and lose fewer ships. Anything else is a draw and no one gets hulks. 3. Weather Effects: For the non-Med portions of the map, 1-3 is clear weather (no modifier), 4-5 is a mild storm/heavy seas (-1 to all combat & hulk rolls), and a 6 is a full-on gale (-2 to all rolls). In the calmer Med, 1-4 is clear and 5-6 is a -1 modifier. When using the Advanced Naval Rules, in a port raid, do the harbor guns inflict both casualty and morale losses, or only casualties? One of the authors, Ed Whittaker, replied: Though my playing group never had occasion to use the Port Raid rules, the intent was for it to act like any other roll on the tables (except artillery), i.e., the loss of morale is the correct response. 6.1.5 Advanced Foraging For those who want more accuracy: In each area which has had a number of foraging corps moved through it which is greater than the forage value of the area, place a FORAGED counter. In each area which has had a number of foraging corps greater than twice the forage value of the area, place a DEPLETED counter. DEPLETED counters are also placed whenever a second FORAGED marker would be placed. Whenever a corps forages, its forage die roll is increased by one if it moved through a foraged area and by two if it moved through a depleted area. Each March economic phase, remove all FORAGED markers and replace all DEPLETED markers with FORAGED markers. 6.1.6 Surrendering corps Some people like to give corps the opportunity to surrender when faced with field combat. Usually this is done just before picking chits or at the end of a day, with all leaders being captured. This allows you to preserve your troops if your are completely overwhelmed, about to surrender, etc. 6.2 Miscellaneous Questions 6.2.1 Why do only France and Russia have artillery corps? In the Napoleonic time period, French and Russian guns were of a much higher quality than other nations' guns. In addition, France and Russia routinely utilized their guns in grand batteries. 6.2.2 Is it right for countries to be able to build unlimited numbers of troops, if they are put in garrison? Some posters on the list have questioned the ability of countries to build unlimited numbers of garrison factors and pay no upkeep on them. During periods of peace, a country can stand down most of its corps, put the factors in garrison, and pay little maintenance on a large army. The responses seemed evenly split between two opinions. The first was that either this situation could only occur if other players were remiss and allowed unmolested build time, or that it really didn't make you a lot stronger to have full garrisons since your field army remained the same size. Of the posters who wanted to change this, there were several solutions proposed. The first was a set of rather detailed rules from Jarek Andruszkiewicz : You must agree each "mobilization" costs PP. Thus: a draft in March -1 PP June -1,5 PP September -1 PP December 0,5 PP The draft in June is the most costly, since you take man from the fields during harvests. Then, you can make one draft yearly (the mobilization system is so expensive, that even today soldiers are called one/two times a year. Napoleonic era administration system wasn't able to make drafts more often than once a year). During the draft you can call 1x to 4x the printed manpower (thus you can draft 4x your manpower which equals standard mobilization in EiA, or less say 1x, which will be only 1/4 of the normal yearly mobilization). Then, you multiply the PP cost of the draft by how many times you multiplied your manpower while drafting (hope my English is clear enough here). It means: 1x draft in March costs 1PP 4x draft in June costs 6PP (yes, I know..., but believe me it is close to real costs of calling men in June). Then you use Economic Manipulation to reduce political costs of draft rather than to "stay where you currently are" at PP display. I believe playing with this option would require: 1. using Eco. Man 2. using VP levels as for standard (no Eco. Man) game. The system takes care of army buildup. Simply no power will risk additional PP loss if not extremely forced to. Also the number of mobilized man is much closer to reality (Nappy mobilized over 700.000 in winter 1812/13, impossible now in EiA). Not playtested Other solutions were: Cap the maximum number of factors that a country could possess at any one time. Change maintenance from $1/corps to $1/10 factors. Pay maintenance on a per factor basis. $1 per except for cavalry and guard which are $2. Attrition 1/5 of garrison factors every quarter. Pay $1 maintenance per 5 garrison points. Limit garrisons to the counter mix. 6.2.3 What kind of surrender to demand? Many times, players at war will only consider unconditional surrender of the other side. There are good reasons, however, to offer conditional surrenders to your opponents. Here are some reasons given on the list: 1. Leaves your opponent strong enough to fight the other countries, so they don't get easy PPs from "shooting cripples." 2. Doesn't create a grudge which may hurt you later. 3. If you're France, leaves your opponent strong enough so that he will fight the next time you DoW, theoretically giving you more PPs. 6.2.4 When should France free minor countries? The French usually gains control of many conquered minors. Freeing these countries gives you more troops to work with, and, if using the New Political Combinations rule, political points. The drawback is that these minors usually have a morale much worse than French regulars. Should you use them, thereby diluting your force? Most writers agreed that, while minors do give you a lower morale, they are necessary. France doesn't have enough corps to defend everything she will be called on to defend. Minors can do this, and also provide good garrisons. Try to leave them conquered as long as your French corps are not full. Once this is done, their money is probably better spent generating low-cost garrisons and corps to protect supply lines. 6.2.5 Some people use house rules preventing a major power from using the manpower from a conquered minor with corps to build major power regular infantry. What is the basis for this? Some players feel that it is not historical to allow minor countries which historically fielded formations of their own to provide manpower to a major power's army. That manpower is generally of a lower quality if put in its native army, so why should it get a better morale by just putting it in a different corps? In addition, many minor countries such as Bavaria and Saxony provided significant contingents to Napoleon's army. Napoleon did not disband these formations and put their men into the French army, so why should a player be given that choice? The arguments against this restriction were based on the following: First, there is already a drawback to keeping those minors conquered. Specifically, you only get face value for them, rather than doubled as a free state. Some argued that the morale of the troops would be increased by serving with a major power corps. That corps would be led by a major power commander and have its supposedly better staff. Many argued that morale doesn't just represent the actual mental state of the men, but also the staff work and officer/NCO training. Another point was that perhaps the manpower from the minor is not actually put into the army. It is used to free up more of the major power's male population, who go into the army. *6.2.5.1 What about North African minors? No one used their manpower during the *Napoleonic wars or even later. Is it realistic to allow them to be used to *build major power regulars? *This discussion revolved around whether or not Britain, who frequently ends up *with these minors, becomes too powerful if they have access to these minors' *manpower. *One camp held that, with North African manpower, Britain will have fully half *of their army composed of north africans. It will make it to easy for her to *replace losses, making her far more likely to interfere on the continent. A *subgroup of this camp agreed, but said it was the responsibility of the other *powers to make sure this didn't happen, not to change the rules. *The other camp said that it did not make Britain too powerful and might have *been included as play balance. *It was a general consensus that, for play balance reasons, Spain and Turkey *should not be precluded from using North African manpower to build regulars. 6.2.6 Aren't blockades far too effective and inexpensive? It was generally agreed that the blockade rules as they are, i.e. no possiblilty of escaping port past a blockading fleet, paying only 1/5 of the maintenance cost of that paid while at sea, are not representative of the reality of Napoleonic naval history. Several (>10) examples were given of fleets of SOLs ranging from 7 to 25 slipped past blockading fleets, even if guarding transports. Two of these were the expedition to Egypt and the French breakout prior to Trafalgar. A few suggestions for rectifying this are listed below: Allow blockaded fleets to "spend" a number of movement points to try to escape. If a 6-sided die roll was less than the number of movement points spent, the fleet escapes. Make blockade box interceptions unsuccessful on a roll of 6 on a 6-sided die and give a 1/6 chance of completely eluding interception attempts. Make fleets in blockade boxes pay $5 for maintenance. 6.2.7 Why create New Political Combinations? The most important reason is for the political point gain. For the Kingdom of Italy, several posters wrote that they liked getting the Venetian fleet counter. Others countered that, by the time you had built any Italian ships, it was very possible that you could have lost the Kingdom. 6.2.8 Who is the bigger threat, France or Britain? The argument can be made for either. A large France is a threat to all of its neighbors. With the Confederation of the Rhine, she can fight any one and possibly two powers at the same time and come out ahead. Britain can control the seas, but is less able to project power anywhere. She will usually need another power's help to crush someone. On the other hand, Britian can, if using economic manipulation, get to the 10 VP box on the Political Status Display and use the "wooden walls" defense, i.e., hide behind her navy, and manipulate for +2 each quarter to stay there. 6.2.9 Economic Manipulation and the "Wooden Walls" strategy. A tactic Britain can use is to get to the 10 VPs/quarter box on the Political Status Display, then use economic manipulation of +2 PP to stay there. By building as many ships as she can, she can prevent anything but a massive naval coalition from attacking her successfully. There are two methods to stop this. One is to not use economic manipulation. The other is for France and Spain, possibly supported by Russia and/or Turkey, to attack Britain immediately at the beginning of the game and force her to remove fleets as a result of peace. 6.2.10 The Counter Mix With how many depots does each country start? Great Britain 8 France 8 Russia 8 Austria 9 Spain 8 Prussia 7 Turkey 7 * *6.2.11 Rate the Countries *8 list participants rated the countries based on how much they like playing *each. The favorite was given a "1" and the least favorite a "7." The averages *of those responses are shown below: *Fr GB Ru Au Pr Sp Tu *2.6 4.1 1.8 5.1 5.9 4.5 4.0 *6.2.12 Leader Ratings *One of the favorite pass-times on the mailing list is to debate leader ratings. *Here's some of the action: *Before I list, I want to give a scale of what I think each number represents *in terms of strategic and tactical ratings (yes, I have a lot of time on my *hands right now....) *1: Horrendous, 2: Mediocre, 3: good, dependable, 4: excellent leader, 5: * superior *Here it goes: *Great Britain: *Nelson: naval leader and should be in the game. No brainer. *Wellington: 5.5.3 should be a 4.5.3. Wellington was a superb tactician, but *I don't see how he justified a 5 strategic rating. He never did any *spectacular marching maneuvers and he was even strategically surprised by *Napoleon in 1815. Might even go so far as a 3 for strategic rating. *Beresford 3.3.1 should be a 2.3.1. Though Beresford did beat the French at *Albuera and did do well with the Portuguese army, he was under Wellington for *most of the Peninsular War. I don't see how he justifies getting a 3 *strategic rating, though he probably should get a 3 tactical rating. *Moore: 3.4.2 should be a 3.4.2. Moore's ratings probably stem from the *Corunna campaign in 1808 and he probably justifies those ratings. He might *very well have overshadowed Wellington if he had stayed alive, but we'll *never be able to know for certain. *.. Moore's campaign in Spain in 1807. He invaded from Lisbon toward *Salamanca with 35,000 men, with the main goal of giving moral, if not much *military, support to the Spanish Juntas, against what they believed to be *about 80,000 French (there were actually close to 300,000). Moore risked *splitting his army into unsupported columns in order to accomplish a *hazardous march over mountains into Spain. The the army made it to *Salamnca only to discover that Napoleon had smashed through the Spanish *armies under Palafox and Castanos on the Ebro and was about to capture *Madrid. Moore then quite boldly decided to move his badly outnumbered army *towards Valladolid in northern Spain, where the threat to Napolon's *communications would Force the French to re-cross the mountains North of *Madrid to protect their rear, drawing them away from Madrid and the Spanish *armies in the South of Spain. The plan was to then retreat towards Corruna *and the English fleet on the west coast. While en-route to Valladolid, he *learned that his move had done as intended - he also learned the true *strength French in Spain, and that Napoleon was sending much of it to *destroy Moore's army. Moore's little force fought a brillint retreat back *to the coast, and finally repulsed Soult and the French outside of Corruna, *allowing his army to escape. Moore died in the battle. I've often *thought, in light of this campaign, if his EIA strategic rating isn't a *little low - perhaps his 3-4-2 should be a 4-4-2. *Spain: *Cuesta: 1.2.3 should be a 1.1.2. Cuesta was a superannuated fool of a *general who does not deserve a mediocre tactical rating. He got his butt *kicked in the battles that he fought and he even negated Wellington's *abilities a couple of times when they teamed up against the French *Blake: 2.2.4 should be a 2.2.4. I admittedly do not know a great deal about *this general, but I'll go with the ratings of EiA on this one. *Castanos: 3.3.3 should be a 3.3.3. Several months ago, I would have argued *about this one. However, an EiA person from Spain posted Castanos' biography *on this list and I have to admit, I was pretty impressed. He was probably *one of the more "unknown" generals of this period. *Spanish additions: La Romana: 2.3.2: Is there any reason why this general *is not included in EiA? These ratings seem right for this leader and he is a *good balance for Cuesta. *France: *Napoleon: 5.5.6 should be a 5.5.6. Napoleon is pretty obvious. However, I *do think that the optional rules that reduce his ratings over time (tactical *4, strategic 4) should be used. This was not a result of any battle *casualty. Napoleon did become less able (?) as time went on. He made some *very bad decisions in his later years that he probably would not have made in *say, 1805. *Davout: 4.5.2 should be a 4.5.2. I know that there was a furious debate on *Davout a little while ago, but I have to admit that I agree with these *numbers. Davout was a superb tactician and strategist and was one of the few *French marshals who could command an independent French army well. Although *he was only a corps commander, he did hold a couple of independent *assignments and he never lost a battle. *Soult: 3.3.3 should be a 3.3.3. Soult was a pretty decent marshal, and the *high tactical maximum rating is almost certainly due to the time that he *spent leading armies in Spain. He had his ups and downs in the Peninsula and *if there was a more unified command structure in Spain, he might have fared *better. *Massena: 4.4.3 should be a 4.4.3. Again, Massena's ratings go with the *armies that he led in Spain, but he did hold a number of independent commands *before that * (Italy and Switzerland). Massena was an excellent leader, who faced some of *the best allied generals in both the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic *Wars. He did very well for the most part, having trouble with only *Wellington. Even this might not have been true, again, if there was a *unified command structure in Spain. *Murat: 2.3.3* should be a 2.2.2*. I will say that Murat is probably the *premier cavalry leader in the Napoleonic period, but even so, his ratings are *overestimated in EiA. Murat did well in pursuit (hence the cavalry symbol) *as well as carrying out cavalry charges under the eye of Napoleon, but his *tactical ability on independent abilities were not so good. When not with *Napoleon, his ratings should be about mediocre, and he should not have a *tactical maximum rating of 3. *Bernadotte: 2.2.2 should be a {pick one} 2.2.2 or a 2.3.1. This one was *tough. Bernadotte certainly had the capability to be a good corps commander, *but he was also very ambitious and not a "team player." *Ney: 2.4.1 should be a 2.3.1. There can be no doubt that Ney was the *"bravest of the brave." However, being very brave does not necessarily *justify a 4 tactical rating. He was good, but not that good. A decent corps *commander, he was not very solid with larger formations and screwed up *royally with independent army assignments (rearguard in Russia being the *exception). *Eugene: 3.3.1 should be a 3.3.2. This, in my opinion, is one of the hose *jobs of EiA. Eugene was not just a glorified corps commander, but commanded *the armies of the Kingdom of Italy during this period (represented by *Lombardy and Venetia). He was a pretty capable commander and he handled the *Italians well in the campaigns that he fought. He even battled the Austrians *and Neapolitans to a standstill in 1814. He also did a credible job bringing *the remnants of the Grande Armee to the Elbe in 1813, when Murat and Napoleon *ducked out. *Reply: *From some source I don't recall, in 1813 Eugene commanded "three small *corps" in Italy. Philip Haythornthwaite says in his 'Napoleonic *Sourcebook' that the Kingdom of Italy did not use Corps, but rather paired *divisions together under a "Lieutenant General" . If a pair of divisions *can be considered a small corps, then he commanded six divisions with three * (maybe more, depending on cavalry and the Royal Guard) subordinate leaders. * I think this justifies at least a 3.3.2 for him. But as I stated earlier, *he should earn it. He didn't spring from Josephine's womb as a general, *but was an excellent student, and his stepfather instructed him well. But *in 1805 he was barely out of adolescence with little if any command *experience. *Jerome: 2.2.1 should be GONE. This is a big question mark for me. As far *as I know, Jerome appeared only in 1812 commanding an army in Russia. He did *a really bad job with it too (then had a temper tantrum and left when Davout *arrived to help him). For the most part he sat in Westphalia and ruled that *region. If you're going to have him then you might as well have...... * (just for kicks) Joseph Bonaparte. Yes, who could forget that superb *leadership that he displayed throughout this period. By the way, his ratings *would be a 0.1.1...... *Seriously, one addition for France. *Lannes, who should be a 3.4.1. Lannes was an outstanding corps commander. *An excellent tactical leader, he could move troops as well, which goes with *his 3 strategic rating. I'm very surprised that he wasn't in the French *group for EiA (while Jerome was). *Reply: *Shouldn't Grouchy be added sometime around 1813 to 1815? He commanded a *major wing of the army at Waterloo, and despite his huge mistake of not *marching to the guns at Waterloo, he generally did rather well. Especially *after Waterloo, when he managed the retreat of a large portion of the army *from Waterloo to Paris in a highly competent fashion... Perhaps a 2-4-4 or *3-4-4? He was a cavalryman - does he rate status as a cavalry leader?Prussia: * (or do we have to?) *Reply to Reply: *From what I have read, Grouchy (and Bessieres, for that matter) was a *better Cavalry Reserve commander than Murat. That is not to say he was a *better cavalryman in every respect. Murat was charismatic and men would *follow him anywhere. The other two seemed to lack self-confidence when on *their own. Murat had a superb eye for terrain, but almost no common sense, *and rode much of his horseflesh into the ground in Russia. Just as the *combination of Blucher, to lead the troops, and Gneisenau, to attend to the *mundane details, was effective, pairing Murat with someone to serve as his *Gneisenau/Berthier would have been desirable. But who, other than *Caroline, could have gotten Murat to do something he didn't feel like? *Also, while Grouchy effectively defended on Lannes left at Friedland, it *seems he missed at least one opportunity (due to caution) that Murat *probably would have seized and done grievous harm to the Russians. *Blucher: 3.4.5* should be a 3.4.5*. This is only because Gneisenau was on *his general staff. The two made a good combination and these ratings only *make sense if the two are together. Otherwise, Blucher is a drunken weirdo. *Hohenlohe: 1.2.4 should be a 1.2.4. Don't know why, just didn't want to *bother changing it. He got the crap kicked out of him at Jena, but to be *fair, he was outnumbered 2-1 by Napoleon. Might be a 1.2.3 though..... *Brunswick: 2.1.3 should be a 2.1.3. (sigh) Brunswick was definitely past *his prime in this period. I think that's all I'll say on that. *Yorck: 3.3.2 should be a 3.3.2. Yorck was a pretty capable commander, but *he never had the chance to lead large armies. Might have been better if *given the chance. *Prussian addition: Bulow: 2.3.1. Pretty decent corps commander who was *fairly capable in an independent command. At least mediocre. *Austria: *Mack: 1.3.4 should be a 1.3.2. I'm sure Mack was a somewhat capable leader, *but Ulm didn't exactly help him. He was gone from the Napoleonic period *after that one (I think they jailed him). The EiA ratings seem to me more *play balance than anything else. *John: 1.1.2 should be a 1.1.2. Archduke John was incompetent. Enough said. *Schwarzenburg: 2.2.3 should be a 2.2.5. Why? Crown Prince Schwarzenburg *was not a fantastic soldier, but he held the allied armies together in 1813. *Having Radetsky as his chief of staff probably didn't hurt either. *Increasing his tactical rating to 5 still makes him a mediocre leader, which *is what he pretty much was. *Charles: 4.4.6 should be a 2.4.6. I know I will lambasted for this one. *The Archduke Charles was a very good tactical commander, and was one of *Napoleon's tougher opponents during this period. However, he was a very *sluggish commander and he was not a risk taker, which does not justify a 4 *strategic rating. He was far more interested in preserving the army for the *Hapsburg dynasty than commiting it in battle. He did do well against some of *the other French leaders in the 1790's, but couldn't get over his awe of *Napoleon. Even at his great moment in 1809 at Aspern-Essling, Charles could *have done a lot more and it was more that Napoleon understimated the crossing *of the Danube than any great planning by Charles. He also let the French *army escape when he could have destroyed it. At Wagram, he made no attempt *to contest the French crossing and merely waited for Napoleon to fight. *Reply: *I could imagine a justification for a 3.4.6. because of the handicap of his *having to work under the restrictions of the councel Aulic Council, but *only if you consider that condition. On his own he was willing to be much *bolder... *His plan in 1809 was to invade Germany from Moravia with his main army, *cutting off the forces in Bavaria and smashing them. He probably could *have done it, but the Councel vetoed the plan. He beat everyone else he *faced, or last least avoided defeat. And you don't give him enough credit *for getting his army out of Germany in one piece and back to the Vienna *area anticipating Napoleon's move accross the Danube - a lightning march *for the Austrians. He BEAT Napoleon strategically...if he had any failing, *such as occaisionally being a little slow to get started, that would be a *tactical negative, which I think is already reflected in his 4 rating. *Rebuttal: *He was willing to march bolder in the initial states of his plans. Part of *his move to the south of the Danube was his idea. The Aulic Council merely *confirmed that decision. His original intent was to move from Bohemia and *into central Bavaria, getting into the French corps that were massing and *knock them out one by one. However, even Charles began to have doubts that *this plan would work (they might be ambushed by the French in the Bohemian *passes o they might just drive straight to Vienna....) and when the Aulic *Council told him to move south, his basic plans had already been changed. *Actually if he had stuck to his plan and moved, he might have been able to *well underway before the Aulic Council summons could reach him (sorry, your *transmission is breaking up, can't hear you, etc.......). *His army was ready in March 1809, precisely when the French army in Bavaria *was at it's most vulnerable. Napoleon had recognized the danger, but *estimated (wrongly) that the Austrians would not be ready until May. What he *did was compromise between his original plan and the demands of the Aulic *Council (plus his own changes made about the same time). The move to the *southern bank of the Danube cost him three weeks, and he split his forces up, *leaving some forces in Bohemia (2 corps) under Bellegarde, which was really *meaningless. *When he did advance into Bavaria, his advance was very slow. It was slow *enough that Napoleon arrived from Paris and reorganized Berthier's shoddy *plans of concentration. It was slow enough that Napoleon had time to shift *Lannes' and Massena's corps and hit the Austrian left flank at Eckmuhl (which *was after the battle of Abensburg, where Napoeon had figured out where the *Austrian army was, while Charles was still stumbling about). After this *reverse, Charles responded by pulling his army to the north bank of the *Danube and told the Emperor Francis that he should seek peace. And this *while fully half of the Austrian army was yet to be commited to any battle! *The Austrian army was still divided because Hiller's left wing was still *south of the Danube. Napoleon pretty much ignored Charles while *concentrating against Hiller on the south bank. Hiller conducted delaying *actions until he moved his force to the north bank on May 11 to link up with *Charles. Napoleon took Vienna (again) and captured the entire Austrian *storehouse of military goods there. Napoleon's intent was to concentrate on *smashing Hiller before he could link up with Charles, which Napoleon failed *to do. As for getting the army out in one piece, Charles was an expert at *doing that. He felt that the army was the strength behind the Hapsburg *throne and to use up that army was to weaken the hold of the monarchy. This *might have been true, but he also failed to take any risks whatsoever. The *strategic ratings in the game a factored mainly on outflanking attacks, *reinforcing battles and withdrawing from battles. Charles never really made *any successful outflanking attacks, nor reinforced battles nor did he *extricate his army in the middle of a battle (note that I did not say leave a *battle after the first day, which is not the same thing). *I'm not sure that he beat Napoleon strategically. If you mean in the opening *stages of the 1809 campaign, then he frittered it away by being very slow to *march to take advantage of the opportunities.. *He also did not take advantage of his victory at Aspern-Essling and if he had *been even a little bit aggressive, he might have turned a bloody victory * (5,200 Austrian dead, 21,500 wounded for comparable French losses) into a *disaster for the French. *2nd reply: *Regarding Charles - after rereading several accounts of the 1809 campaign, *I'm convinced he deserves at least a 4-4-6. Maybe a 4-5-6. He was *brilliant at Aspern-Essling, and his planning and exection of the campaign *were sound throughout, and at times superlative. His biggest problem was *occasionally having epileptic fits at inopportune times. I believe Mat *errs when he says the Austrian army was ready to move in March 1809 and *Charle's change of plans caused the delay. My reading is that the army was *still mobilizing and the fact that the army wasn't ready to move led *Charles to go ahead and acceed to the Aulic council's concerns (moving the *army to the Danube south Bank). The launcing of his attack in April still *caught Napoleon by surprise - he didn't think Charles could do it. *Mat faults Charles for counseling Frances to seek peace after Eckmuhl. *Again, my read is that Charles had accurately assessed the situation. *Vienna was going to fall, and he could do little at that point to prevent *it - which is just what happened. Remember, Charles had counseled - *wisely, it turned out - before the war that the army wasn't ready. So how *does that count against him? *The fact that he never got beaten badly enought to have to withdraw from a *battlelfield should enhance his tactical rating, not reduce his strategic *rating. But as a matter of fact, he did disengage at Aspern, successfully *withdrawing his badly shaken right flank under cover of a massive artillery *barrage - the one that killed Lannes. He also successfully disengaged and *withdrew at Wagram at the end of the 2nd day - a withdrawal that Esposito *described as "masterful". At Eckmuhl, Aspern-Essling, and Wagram he *launched envelping manuevers that were turned back only by bitterly staunch *French resistance - and John's failure to appear at Wagram. His delay in *attacking at Aspern-Essling may credibly have been deliberate - to allow *them to move into a trap (the maelstrom they indeed faced at *Aspern-Essling) although the results prove his delay - deliberate or *otherwise - was a mistake. The attack was also addtionally delayed by *incompetence of Hiller and Bellegarde. *The comment about Charles' lack of aggressiveness at Aspern Essling is a *bit mystifying. He was late starting (as mentioned above) but once underway *the Austrian attack was fiercely pressed until 10 pm, then continued the *next morning, attacking the French flanks, then later in the day the *center. Charles' largest failing in this battle wasn't lack of *aggressiveness - it was his decision to initially attack the strongly held *flanks, instead of the center. Had he thrown all the weight against the *center instead he might well have crushed Napoleon and won a great victory. *In general, his managment of events while battle was in progress was *always, excepting his seizures at Eckmuhl, excellent, sometimes superb - *often catching Napoleon off-guard, and always able to counter Napoleon's *maneuvers and avoid defeat. *The other problems Mat refers to just aren't Charles' fault. The slow *initial advance into Bavaria - the Austrian army moved slowly, and in the *end there wasn't much he could do about that, try as he did. And the *army's slowness and the generally poor quality of the sub-commanders are *reflected in the reduced Austrian movement rates and morale values. *Charles shouldn't pay for it in his leadership values. *Austrian additions: Bellegarde 2.2.2. There should be at least one more *leader in the later campaigns for Austria rather than just Schwarzenburg. *Maybe even Hiller could be included.... *Turkey: *Grand Vizier: 1.2.4 should be a 1.2.4. However, I believe in the Turkish *optional rule concerning the Grand Vizier. It is a position and not a *person. These numbers should be able to change with a new Vizier. *Kushanz Ali 2.3.3* should be a 2.3.3*: From what I gather from a recent *post, this leader was of Balkan extraction and did lead some cavalry forces. *Didn't do too badly either, though he lost a couple of battles. *Pechlivan Khan: 3.4.3 should be a 2.3.2: Pechlivan Khan (again, from *another EiA poster) was apparently the commander of the Janissaries. Maybe a *good commander, but considering the problems between the various factions of *the Turkish army, would not have been effective outside the Janissaries. *Russia: *Alexander: 1.2.4 should be a 1.1.2. This is the Russian version of *Jerome/Joseph. Who was lighting the crackpipe when they came up with these *numbers? Alexander was about as incompetent as they came when it came to *military leadership. To be honest, he probably shouldn't even be represented *as a leader. *Kutusov: 3.4.4 should be a 3.4.4. Kutusov was a pretty competent leader and *I don't see any reason to adjust these. He was a very good tactical *commander. *Bagration: 2.4.4 should be a 2.3.3. I'm sure Bagration was a decent leader, *but can anyone tell me what he did to give him a 4 tactical rating (and the *ability to command 4 corps to boot) other than perhaps play balance? *Bennigsen: 2.2.3 should be a 2.2.3. These are pretty accurate. Bennigsen *was a pretty mediocre leader, when it's all said and done. *Wittgenstein: 2.2.4 should be a 2.2.3. Same as Bennigsen (above). Got *lucky at Bautzen. If Ney pulled off the outflanking maneuver, the allies *would have been badly beaten (and Wittgenstein's numbers decreased *considerably). *Reply: *Wittgenstein, a Russian Leader, has a 4 tactical maximum. This is obviuously *based on the *solid fact that he was Russian C-i-c after Kutuzov's death in April 1813 and *till the *defeats of Lutzen and Bautzen. But the wider picture gives different impression *He begun as a hussard and distinguished himself as a cavalry leader in 1805-07 *campaign. *In 1812 he was assigned to protect the road to St.Petersburg in the northern *flank, rather *occasionally, IMO. But he fought St.Cyr, Victor and Oudino more or less *successfully and *was proclaimed "the saviour of St.Petersburg", the most honorable name as *Moscow obviously *found none to be saved (though I think he wasn't the only general in Russian *army capable *to win in such circumstances and though he with Chichagov screwed up Berezina *but only the *latter was blamed by opinion). So his appointment to replace Kutuzov. *But in fact he was a man incapable to command a unit larger than a corps. *Eyewitnesses *reported about a chaos in the HQ during his command and he himself, being a *brave and *honest man, soon realized his inability and ask for replacement (though a **couple of *defeats really helped him ;-)). He was replaced and once again became a corps *commander. *He was lucky enough to meet Oudino once again and beat him at Bar-sur-Aube in *1814. For me *all this make obvious that his tactical maximum might be 2 at best. And I feel *something *hussard in his nature, a kind of Murat-Bagration-Blucher theme *Tactical abilities of these person well may be argued but, IMO, tactical rating *in EiA *represents not only tactician's abilities (why, for God's sake, outflanking is *excluded *from them?) but also a 'moral-raising' abilities to lead men. May be, it's a *mistake of *EiA but not as great to be a game spoiler *Tormassov: 1.2.3 should be a 1.2.3: I don't know much about this leader, *though he couldn't have been anything special if I didn't hear anything about *him. The only thing I know about him is that he was in charge of the 3rd *Western army that was forming up in southern Russia when the French invaded. *Barclay: 3.3.5 should be a 3.3.5. Barclay was a dependable commander who *led the reorganization of the Russian army prior to the 1812 campaign. He *prevented the Russian armies from being destroyed on the border in the early *stages of the French invasion, but the people hated his constant retreating. *It could be said that Kutusov's bloody stalemate with the French at Borodino *was a product of Barclay's withdrawal policy, since the Russians would have been smashed if there was any battle on the frontier. *Minor additions: *Poland: Poniatowski: 2.3.2. Fairly decent Polish general, later made a *French marshal (1813). Commanded the Poles with distinction. *Egypt: Mehmet Pasha: 2.3.2. Built the Egyptian army into a formidable *force. It was enough to drive the British out in 1807 and keep independent *of the Ottoman Empire. That has to count for something. 6.2.13 Guard Commitment The Guard Commitment rule is a wonderfully shiny piece of chrome, but what does it really portray? It appears to be intended to cover situations such as the last French assault at Waterloo, where the failure of the Guard attack disheartened the rest of the French enough to cause them to quit the field. In this sense it captures some portion of reality. But what would a successful French attack have accomplished in real and in game terms, and does the rule provide for that? The attack (by seven battle depleted battalions of the Middle Guard, hardly the entire corps) could at best have broken the Anglo-Dutch line at one place and compelled Wellington to withdraw. Given his army's steadi ness throughout the battle to this point, such an event would probably not have precipitated a rout, even by the despised Dutch and Brunswicker militiamen (assuming you buy into the chauvinism of the British regarding them), and the retreat would have been orderly. Moreover, the French were in no position to exploit the win, and were still being pressed hard on their right by the arriving Prussians. This feels more like a Mexican standoff than a victory, or in game terms, the end of three rounds of battle with neither side broken. The Guard Commitment Rule wouldn't allow this, however. It requires one or both armies being broken, not just mutually exhausted. Why should the failure of a Guards attack cause the army to break anyway? Earlier that day, the Young Guard was heavily engaged at Placenoit by the Prussians, and eventually pushed back. This defeat didn't faze the rest of the army. The bulk of the Old Guard was sent in, and drove the Prussians back, but hardly broke them, and again the rest of the French failed to rout. The failure of the Middle Guard attack was demoralizing arguably not because it was the Guard that had failed, but because they were the last shot Napoleon had at pulling out a win. With all reserves gone and the rest of the army stalemated or hard pressed, with Prussians streaming in on their flank and rumors that Grouchy had turned traitor starting to spread, the rankers figured the jig was up and literally took steps to salvage what they could, their own skins. Reply: Actually, I suspect it's more about play balance. Given the advantage of committing the Guards, it really makes them too important if there's not more of a disadvantage to using them than just the extra expensive casualties. I suppose the designers could have jacked up the number of casualties caused by Guard committment to a point where people would think twice about using them, but that would have been completely unrealistic. Besides, such a means of balancing them would have been to the advantage of the richer countries in comparison to the poorer countries (read Prussia!). Napolean's fears about committing the Guard had to do with lack of reserves, both for saving the day in case some potential disaster loomed and to take advantage of any golden opportunities which presented themselves. The effect of the rule is to make committing the Guard a risky thing to do, perhaps more risky than it was in real life. (Breaking if you fail to break your enemy apparently implies that the side which committed its Guard and failed to win must necessarily have required their presense later and they were no longer available, hence it lost the battle.) I suppose the advantage of commiting them must be likewise a little overstated in game terms in comparison to real life as well. If so, I can understand why: the rule is fun. Another reply: I would think Austerlitz qualified as a guard commitment. The Austrian/Russian army broke due to an all-out charge by the French Guard Cavalry. While there was certainly other factors in the break, I think the commitment rules reflect the fervor and timing of their involvement. If I recall the battle correctly (and it's been a while since I read the details), the Guard Cavalry charged the Russian Guard and chased them from the field, which resulted in the army deciding it was time to leave. Another reply: The Russian Imperial Guard (both infantry and cavalry) was the sole allied reserve at Austerlitz. They made a major attack when the French stormed Pratzen Heights, which failed mainly because the infantry charged forward much too early and were exhausted by the time they actually reached the French lines. They did, however, manage to still break the first line of defense and send some French battalions running. It was only when Napoleon commited the Guard Cavalry did the situation stabilize. I'm not sure that the Allies broke because of the failure of the Guard in a morale aspect or if it had to do with the fact that they had no reserves left to commit. I suspect it was because of the latter reason. I admit that I don't know a huge amount on the Russian Imperial Guard, but I do know that they were chosen for their size and strength (as opposed to merit or experience in the French Imperial Guard). I also believe (I might be wrong on this) that the French Imperial Guard had such a mystique about it that when they did fail, their Regular counterparts fell apart. I'm not so sure that this was the case with the Russian Guard, though I am not saying that they were not considered elite. Other than the instance of the Russian Guard at Austerlitz and Borodino, I have not read of any such commitment of the Prussian Guard at all, and though the Austrian Grenadiers were present at battles, I don't remember any time when they were committed. Were they used at Wagram and Aspern-Essling? Was there any such commitment by the allies during the 1813 & 1814 campaigns? My knowledge on that particular time is fuzzy. Another reply: Austrian grenadiers started in the reserve and were committed in a piecemeal fashion. A few battalions here, a few there. One brigade was committed to stop a French breakthrough on the third day of Caldiero. Another reply: Austrian Grenadiers were not elite troops in the same sense as the French or Russian Guards. They were just the grenadier companies of the line regiments, detached and "converged" into ad hoc battalions. EIA makes them more than they were. *6.2.14 Why would you use economic manipulation for -PP? *Two cases were suggested: *1. France has been defeated, lost Napoleon, and is near the bottom of the *Instability Zone. Negatively manipulating into the Fiasco Zone gives lots more *money/MP, plus Napoleon is returned for free. *2. Prussia may need to do it in order to build up a mauled army, without which, *she is pretty impotent. 7.0 Strategy Tips for Specific Powers These are actual responses from the list quoted in their entirety (edited for language in some cases). 7.1 Great Britain 7.2 France France should try to save its ships (notwithstanding some compelling arguments to the contrary). In the long run, mounting a naval coalition to stop Britain is not likely to happen if the whole French navy is at the bottom. The others will come to their senses eventually, and when you accept Britain's surrender and screw the others out of a peace, you can use their initial idiocy as justification. Focus on one -- AU or PR. Sure, it's easy for the one that's not taking any heat to be generous and stalwart. After three months of death and destruction, the other MP will be sorely tested. It's worth the effort -- in the end, even if you have to surrender, it may reduce the peace to a conditional (provided you screwed up in some way). I don't know why, but I tend to focus on Austria in the above case. Maybe it's because they have so much extra territory. It's not that big of a shock to see Prussia get stomped a little, but Austria tends to feel a little more secure. Kill off half his army (the half that isn't near Thereisenstadt in the north with the Prussians) and he'll sing a different tune (other than Edelweiss, that is -- OUCH!). Promise Italy to Spain, and you have an ally against Austria (think about it, help France and gain Italy and a peaceful border with France, or help the allies and forever face the wrath of France...it's not a stretch to see Spain help France -- Davout makes a nice leader defending Spain from Britain...). Give a lot of cash to Turkey and hopefully you have someone to keep Russia at bay...maybe even go after Austria, too... If I am France, I make every attempt to be as friendly as possible to Spain (legitimately). Spain makes a wonderful ally, and I take every chance to try and win them over. If, in the face of all that, Spain comes to war with me -- I will make his life hell from then on. Then it's the principal. The central powers can't take enough evil picks to keep me from hosing down Spain - and I mean TOTAL destruction. I had a Spanish player do that to me once, and afterwards I actually was lenient (as any self-respecting French player should, I left his fleets alive -- though I was tempted to screw myself and rip them away anyway -- I took a deep breath first). I still took three provinces and money and peace. I eventually gave the provinces back (he had learned his lesson and became a stalwart ally)...but it took a while... Strategies for protecting the French Fleet This basically breaks down into the argument over whether or not to put the whole fleet in one port or to split it up among several. The cases: Put it all in one port (Toulon is suggested as a good one): 1. Fewer ground forces required to protect the fleet. 2. Toulon is far away from Britian. He may have a hard time finding enough fleets to blockade you and still look out for Spain and Russia. He may leave you unblockaded, allowing actual use of your fleet. 3. Most of the good ports are in the English Channel. That means the blockading British fleets are right where they want to be to defend Britain. Genoa was also mentioned as a possible base. It is 9 areas way from the Channel. If the restricted naval movement rules are used, this can prevent Britain from using a double move to get back to the Channel if attacked. The drawback is that Genoa is in a minor, meaning it's much easier to lose it (and with it the fleet). Spread it out: 1. Requires more fleets to blockade, reducing British mobility. 2. Lucky rolls by British invasions won't destroy you whole navy in one shot. An interesting strategy is to try to get the French fleet into the Black Sea. There they are relatively safe from the British and can be used to support Turkey against Russia. A few Turkish corps landed in the Crimea or Ukraine can be a strong bargaining chip when making peace. 7.3 Russia There was almost unanimous agreement that Russia should not attack the German powers (i.e., Prussia and Austria) early in the game. This will do one of two things: either make it very easy for France to defeat them and set up a rotation where they cannot help each other against future wars with France or make them hungry for revenge, possibly with French, British, or Turkish help. Neither of these outcomes is good for Russia. The only dissenting opinion was based on a game in which Russia had a strong alliance with Turkey. In this case, Russia and Turkey took territory from Austria. It is tempting to create Poland. This was felt to be a bad move for two reasons: It requires attacking and/or antagonizing the German Powers (see above) and it makes it easy to conquer any home country territories you add to it. A Russian surrender is no longer required for another major power to gain control. They merely have to conquer Poland. Here are Russian options as listed by John Richert for the early game: 1) Attack Prussia now, and have France take out Prussia and Austria one at a time. Also, you antagonize virtually everyone else in the game. 2) Attack Turkey now, play the "typical" Russian. However, with only eight cavalry you better hope you win every battle or a pursuit will cost you your army. 3) Does the Russian have any part of Italy? Normally in the games I have been involved with, the Russians are able to get a part of Italy by starting a corps in Corfu. If you have some units there, then you can play sides. (Before I get flamed, I know that this is an solution) 4) Push Prussia and Austria closer to an alliance. It is nearly the end of 1805, so maybe, an alliance of Prussia and Austria can hold until Blucher arrives in 1806, then the coalition has a fighting chance against the French. Then, when everyone is invovled, the French will try to draw you in against the Prussian rear, knowing that you covet Warsaw, BUT you can use this to coerce Prussia to giving it to you for you neutrality or support against the French. 5) Take Denmark, or try to take Denmark and place a sizable force there that can threaten both the French and the Prussians. Aid whoever gives you the best terms for your support. This may not be possible due to Denmark already being owned by another player, but it is an option. 7.4 Austria I do everything I can to convince the Prussian that, above all else, we must stick together or lose the game. I never make an agreement without first consulting the Prussian about his opinion. If I can't convince him to accept an action, I don't do it. It's too easy for France/Russia to pound you individually. For a change of pace, a strong Au/Fr or Au/Ru alliance can prove interesting. Au/Ru might go something like this: 1) fight Fr with Pr and hopefully win. 2) no matter outcome of #1, beat on Pr - grab Poland. 3) then take care of Tu fuedals, to set you up for... 4) round 2 with Fr. Basically you are setting up a Fr/Pr/Tu rotation and beating on them one at a time. Lots of good PPs with Ru and Au leaders v the Prussians and the Turks. Coming out "even" with Fr is good enough. As for Sp and GB...well if you let Fr off the hook enough Fr can deal with SP and GB. In addition, Fr could run over Pr during the Austrian enforced peace and/or make an alliance with Pr. The hard part is the end game where (assuming you guys have taken care of GB and Sp somehow) the main stab comes in. Who are you going to have help you take out Ru? That's where the Diplomacy comes in. Au/Fr: The ole 'Ho job. Set up a nice rotation of Ru/Pr and possibly Tu or Sp. The problem is that everyone might think you are the bad guy by not sticking to the usual alliances...but who cares when you have Fr leaders and morale helping you for most of the game. Here's another one: The usual Au/Pr/ru alliance. You beat the French. Then with English help/ Fr access/Russian/ Turkish fleets you go after Spain. You grab Italy. Head into the Spainish mainland....and at the most opportune time, let the Spanish surrender easily to you and leave the Brits in the middle guerilla nowhere. Good PP gain. What is GB going to do? DOW you? Go after Vienna? And with what army? And at some point he's gonna need your help controlling Fr, not to mention that your Russian and Prussian friends can slip you some English money anyways. What is Spain going to do? What army will he have left after dealing with GB? Who will he be more ticked off at. These strategies are more risky, at least diplomatically, but are worth a try. At the very least, I like building a fleet for Au because it does wonders for sea supply and gives you that much more leverage when asking for cash from GB. For GB's problem is not the number of ships you have, but the extra fleet that he has to blockade in case you and him don't agree. 7.5 Prussia I have never played Prussia, but I have played Austria. My feeling is that they live or die together. I would think this would be even more true from Prussia's point of view. You will have to fight France sooner or later and it will be much easier with Britain and Austria on your side. It would be great for Russia to go after Turkey. That would keep the Turk from attacking your Austrian ally while you are fighting France. Also, be careful about France agreeing to let you grab a lot of minors. When I'm France, I usually let the Germans take all the minors they want. That means I don't have to spend a political point to declare war on them. Under NO circumstances until at least France AND Russia have BOTH been severely mauled, do you EVER even begin to think of fighting your German brothers. You 2 should be practically married, for both your sakes, for a good portion of the game. Don't let others try to divide you 2 against each other or it will be curtains eventually for both of you. Just my 2 cents, assuming reasonable competence by all parties playing the game. By all means join with Austria and the Brits against the French early as that is when they're most vulnerable. At the least ensure Russian neutrality if not active participation on your side in the war. *A general consensus was that Russia must be convinced to help against France, *regardless of cost. Anything given to Russia can be taken away later. If you *fight without Russia, you will have an exhausted Austria/Prussia between a *victorious France and an uncommitted Russia. *Leave minors alone until you've dealt with France. Place screening corps on *the border with the main army around Thereisenstadt. Save as much MP as you *can to rebuild after the first war with France. 7.6 Spain As Spain - when France was nice, I was nice -- for a long, healthy relationship. It pays a LOT to be cordial to Britain, but if possible, Spain and France should be buddies. All that "ally speak" about "stick up for yourself and gain an enforced peace" is roughly translated to "we need a patsy to enrage France and take the heat off us so we can soak up some juicy minors while you get crushed for nothing." When I play Spain the last thing I want to see is a monster England!! As far as I'm concerned letting the Fr bash up against the AU & Pr is a good thing. Its a fairly even match and even if the frogs win they are usually weakened enough army size wise to leave you alone. When I play Spain, I always like to go with a strong French alliance. Its usually less tempting or easy for the French to turn on you quickly. (Just try overusing your fleet while the British aren't busy.) Also, with the French to aid, you can fight a nice little war with the Austrians. You might do better politically allied to the British, but the French are more fun. If I am spain I like being allied to both and then taking what I want and if either one complaines I just go and talk to the other side and the complaner stops complaning.. Protect the ships with the FROGS or send them to the eastern med. This stretches the brits and it also allows you to flee though the bosphorus if the brits come after you with the Royal Navy. You might get 2-1 battles against the brits or you will make him fatally weaken the blockade against the French. Another place to hide your fleet is Genoa. Good guns, closer to French support, and a British commitment here is tougher than Cadiz. Cadiz is close to England, in game terms. From Cadiz, the Brits can fall back to Portugal or Gibralter (usually) or Morocco in your case (since they don't hold the other two). From there, they can ship out for home. Their supporting fleets, providing transport and supply, are also where they can run back to the channel if need be. Genoa is a less welcome area. A British army here is far from any refuge, and any fleets here can't intervene in the Channel; a lucky blockade break by the French, Dutch, Danes, etc. could see an invasion of England. And poor Wellington is far away in Piedmont. For Britian to chase you this far from home would take a lot of courage or some very successful diplomacy. 7.7 Turkey Turkey has been my favorite country to play, and I've been trying to figure out different opening ploys, what do the list folk think about the following for the Grand Campaign? a) First turn DOW on Naples/Scicily. This really ticks off the French, but it's do-able. Turkey has more ships It shouldn't be hard to conquer it. After January 1805, a DOW on Scicily/Naples is suicide. If Austro-French relationships are bad, this is even more likely to succeed. Why is a DOW on KOTS suicide after 1805? With Austrian backing, it's not a problem. I'm mystified why anyone would do this. Naples is wanted by every other power on the board except Prussia, there's not many other minors you can say that about. And why do they want it? Because it has 5 manpower, something you don't desperately need. I'd stay away. b) Pre-Game DOW on Austria. Going the other direction. This, combined with a pregame French DOW on Austria, can easily make Austria crying for help. Only 1 of Russia/Prussia need to stay neutral for this to work. Of course, you have to make sure that France doesn't accept Austria's conditional and leave you in the lurch. (Or take an Unconditional w/o taking the corps destruction clause.) As far as I can tell, you never want to look like you are ganging up on someone. If I were Russia, I would come down on Turkey HARD (and there's no way Prussia should stay neutral against the French : it's suicide). Quite likely to work, might be some PP in it, hopefully get 18 months in which to build the OE, should be French subsidies in it. Won't make you popular, embarrassing if France doesn't start the war immediately, generally distracting, may create a French monster you will later regret. A nasty, thuggish but usually effective move. A big factor is whether you are allowed to discuss things with France before the game starts. c) Pre-Game DOW on Russia. I fail to see the benifits of this, but some people I've played with keeps on saying it's a no-brainer for Turkey??? Could someone tell me why? The only reasonable thing I could think of is to land in Corfu, and get rid of the Russians from the Med, but it's not really in your best interests, is it? Russia is "weak" in 1805, so for Turkey, it's more easy to kill russia, but you are, I think, to weak, alone, to have a conditional (unless luck...). It is your best interest that Russia lose Corfu, because he won't need (he's not in dire need...) an access in the Dardanelles. It happened twice in our game, each time the turks got kicked in the butt... Each time russia is weaken but on one, Turkey did surrender unconditionaly... I really dont advice it, except if the Russian player is a big zero... Pointless. Moscow is too far away, so you can't force a surrender. The war drags on until Russia surrenders to someone else and includes you just to remove an irritant (unlikely), or until someone else attacks you and Russia helps sack Constantinople (usual). d) 1st turn DOW on Cyrenaica (sp?) or any other N. Afr. country other than Egypt. The most common opening. It gets TU into a match vs. Spain/GB eventually. Tunisia. It's the furthest country west you really need, and if you don't get it others may grab it. Start at the ends and work in. Or a first turn DOW on Egypt and Cyrenaica. I did this in a current campaign game and managed to take Egypt and Cyrenaica by the first Eco. phase. Leave lots of troops in Jerusalem, march to Cairo (forage for feudal, depot for Janissary : I lost Bosnian corp in this opening gambit : 5 forage losses + combat with Egyptian corps). e) First turn DOW on Egypt. I used to swear by this, landing the Jannissaries, Nezimi Cedid, and Anatolian Feudal Cav on turn 1, but there doesn't seem to be a point unless someone seems likely to DOW egypt before you. Marching a stack down the eastern shore of the Med and the combining it with your regulars seems to be the better move. Standard. My preference is (d) and (e) combined. On a related note. How does Turkey win battles? I rarely win battles other than being lucky. Usually my hordes will either wear down the opponent, or break. (Usually break.) I usually pick Esc. Assault or Outflank and never probe/echelon, which gets to be pretty predictable. On defence, I do either Esc. Counterattack, outflank, or Defend, which is also pretty predictable. Ottoman Empire countries are fairly easy to break (echelon vs.), and otherwise, you defend and choose Esc. CA or CA (+1 Tu. morale with leader), and Turkey should have cavalry superiority. On a side note, always keep your Turkish cavalry together : you win one big battle, you destroy the opposing army. Another opening gambit : Pre-game DOW on Spain. Allows you access to O.E. countries that Sp. DOW easily, which means you get free troops. If you conquer enough others, when Sp. DOW Morocco, you create the O.E. and "Poof" your morale skyrockets. I prefer to publicly opt for building the Ottoman Empire first, while saying that I am staying out of Europe. However, when someone makes me an irresistable offer,of course I'm going to listen. If the bandwagon is big enough, well, maybe I should jump on too. I don't understand why you restrict your tactical choices so much, particularly in attack. Probe is not much use unless the enemy attempts to outflank and fails, but echelon is an excellent choice for an army with poor morale. Sure, you lose if the enemy picks outflank or cordon, but you have a very good chance of victory if he chooses counter-attack or defend. The expected round-by-round morale losses are: Echelon v Counter-Attack 0.7/0.7 1.6/2.85 2.05/4.8 Echelon v Defend 0.9/1.2 1.6/2.6 2.05/4.55 As always, the trick is to mix up your tactical choices as much as possible. If all you ever choose on attack is outflank or escalated assault a blanket counter-attack order should get you almost every time (only Pechlivan Khan has a 50% chance of a successful outflank on the 2nd round, and in the absence of a flanking force the attacker expects to lose 3.1 morale after only two rounds of outflank against counter-attack). Of course, casualties will be fairly high with a defensive strategy of this type. Don't be so quick to discard the outflank. Just to keep my opponents honest, I pull one of these every once in a while. Either a success or a failure is spectacular. I once totally destroyed a 30 SP Russian army with a defensive outflank followed by a massive cavalry pursuit. A word of caution:- Having played Russia in several ftf games an easy way to defeat Turkey is to wait until all its regulars are down in North Africa and then declare war. This invariably causes the Turks to suffer massive forage losses as they desperately try to rush north. If Britain comes in as well (usually because Egypt is offered as a prize) then the Turkish fleet is usually wiped out (twice it was caught in Benghazi - no guns!). Also a small force of Russians or Brits can take Palestine/Syria and cut off any depot supply. As to the Turks attacking Russia - make my day! The only success I've seen is when there is a strong Franco-Turkish alliance which attacks Austria and prevents Russia from attacking Turkey You have highlighted one of the great mistakes a turk may make. NEVER EVER strip all your regular infantry corps from Turkey home nation, without a) a Russian Alliance, b) the start of winter, c) Russia in a war with someone else. Remember if you are attacked at any time near the end of an economic phase, you can always garrison with your infantry demobalize the corp, and reappear it in Home nation on the start of the next phase. Also, ALWAYS garrison Constantinopal, with friendly sea supply (read France, Spain, anyone!), it is a MAJOR bitch to take. A 2 flechette fortress holding 20 troops, with sea supply, needs at least forty assaulting infantry or a leavening of high quality troops (cav or guard). In addition, if you garrison the border fortresses with Russia, he HAS to take them, or run risk of you doing the demobalize and pop-up infantry corps thing. Having 30 regular infantry running around on your thin supply chain while you are besieging constantinopal, AND trying to catch a horde o' feudals with enough force to cruch 'em is a ROYAL bitch. Russia will eventually win, it'll come down to how much money he has, especially if you are not being subsidized. But a smart Turkish player can always drag out the war and generally make it in Russia's best interest to take no more than a conditional surrender and sometime a neutral. Russia does not enjoy having well over 70 troops factors tied up in Turkey when all the minors are getting stomped or the central Europeans need their help. That said, the one nation, I fear as a Turkish player is Great Britain. With the combination of absolutely overwhelming sea power, very high morale, and good leaders, while GB can't threaten the home nation very well, GB can prune off Cyprus, Crete, Naples/Sicily (if you own it) and all N. African territory West of Egypt w/o a moments thought. All Gb has to do is Sail in and Tripoli (with a max of 5 garrison) shouldn't be too hard. You lose the PP, then he sails on up to Tunis and beseiges it witha 10 factor corps. If you had no corps in Tunis, you can't turn one up, as you are out of supply, a few turns of starving and he can walk in without taking more than 1 or two GB casualties. -2 PP to Turkey, +2 PP/+5 MP to GB. With single factor garrison's of those, he can either move on over to Benghazi or finish off Naples/Sicily. His next step would be to take Palestine and cut supplyto Egypt. I think the scariest thing is that GB, with about 40 troops + 1 full fleet and 3 1 factor fleets can strip all but Egypt w/o thinking about it, and there is NOTHING turkey can do about it, but hopefullly get GB to accept a conditional when GB DOWs. sure GB can do that. But the 20 or 30 ships used to attack Egypt (generaly two fleets), are then unavailable against a Russian/French offensive or even a Spanish/Russian one, or even French/Spanish. Until Russia and Spain cant declare war on GB, Turkey is quite at ease. One strategy that scares the Russian out of me is when Turkey has a full garrison at constantinople, and you as the russian start grinding down the outer fortresses on the way to Constantinople... The Turk splits his forces. He sends the fuedals SW into the Albanian Greek hills. The other force (regulars/rest of fuedals) crosses the straights. This with the Constantinople garrison and a fleet or so just plain drives the Russians to bankruptcy. All of a sudden you have to chase the turks all over the Balkans spending cash and troops. If you don't, the turks harrass and run down the supply line taking all their forage losses in fuedals that will pop right back up in January. And where do you get those troops when just accross the straits from your forces besieging constantinople is a huge mass of Turkish regulars? And even if everything else goes right for Russia and Constantinople is taken, will Russia have the money to continue into Turkey for Civil Disorder? IMO, in a defensive war, the Turk will retreat, use diplomacy to fidn an ally for $$ or fight alongside, and just see Russia weaken herself in an expensive forlorn bad decision. And then when Russia is exhausted/ or attacked by someone else, Turkey pops up the Fuedals (again) and the Ottomans and tears them to shreds. In RU-TU conflicts, not a bad trick, but very risky, is for the Turks to send a cav corp up to Astrakhan. Russians are usually too lazy to garrison it properly, and it it a total bugger for them to march a corp back there. Best done in summer, of course, or in say September, or so. Part of the trick for TU is to be as economically costly to her enemies, and 8/3 is a good price to pay. Whenever Russia attacks Turkey, since it requires many Russian troops to invade and gain anything worth while, Turkey should be able to drag either Austria or Prussia into the war on their behalf. Prussia would find taking the Polish provinces away from Russia to be a great boon. To drag Austria in the war you would have to emphasize that any great Turkish loss could mean that Russia would be that much closer to the dominant status. If Russia gets an unconditional surrender and takes Arm, Mol, and Bes, than he just needs Poland, Finland (which he should already have), and the Galicias (I believe), to become dominant. Not something that Austria would like in particular. Turkey is a resilient power and any number of losses can be erased in one great victory. I have seen entire armies wiped out in a month time. Even the Russian victories can be costly since the Turks should always have plenty of troops with their feudal corps and never suffer a costly retreat due to the large number of cavalry they posess. On the contrary, I feel that the Turk should welcome a war with an unsupported Russia. A supported Russia is obviously a different monster. Also, I have to agree with Tavin that the bear that Turkey should be afraid of is GB. However, the key to that is raising lots of troops. I feel that the best thing that the Turk can do in N. Africa is make the countries free states, the money in the territories is not great, as a result you can only build an extra 6 or 7 infantry if you have the whole of N. Africa, now if you make them free states you can build twice as many. Then make whoever tries to take them over esp. the English pay for them with high casualties. You need to continue to play up the fear of the big, bad, evil, anti-British, scummy, etc. Spanish fleet. Remind *England that the Spanish are only waiting for the right opportunity to attack poor ol' England. Tell Aus/Franc to take all of those juicy spanish provinces in italy. They must keep up their PP, you know. With all of the others at peace you need to find an continental ally. You need to find out about Rus vs. Aus. See if one *or the other will attack. Garrison Egypt! Use both Ott and Turk. You also probably want to leave a feudal or two down there or maybe in Syria. 7.7.1 Should Turkey ally with France or Britain? Turkey requires British non-interference to get the Ottoman Empire. That ends if Turkey allies with France. However, the British have a hard time interfering in the Med in the first 6-12 months of the game, until the naval situation is stable. Siding with Fr/Sp in an 1805 rush at Britain runs the risk of being left out of a peace agreement and having to face Britain alone. One trick is to let Britain DOW the African minors. Turkey has the best chance of gaining control. A quick peace then leaves Turkey with the Ottoman Empire. Britain ends up with a possible good ally against France. Unfortunately, Britain has most of the options and may doublecross you. Helping defeat France, however, may lead to a restless Russia or Austria warring against you to gain dominance. 7.8 Sweden first NEVER ANGER THE RUSSIANS!! - if they are in a bad mood and need a few political points whalla.. they march into Sveaborg and Abo, then storm Stockholm from the sea (sweden only has 12 ships)(or just march over osterbotten) and force the sweds into civil disorder, sweden is gonna be in instability more often than the Turks. second NEVER ANGER THE BRITISH, If I remember correctly sweden is 9/5 and finland is 2/1 that gives a total of 11/6. Three money is used to pay for the army (two corps and 1 fleet) leaving 8, can build infantry for 9!! leaves sweden on -1. The only way that the swedish state is viable is if it can trade with the brits. Britain could force a swedish surrender by blocking it's trade. It can't build any boats without cash gifts. third TRY TO GET FIRST DIBS ON DENMARK (use the sympathy card.. I'll be a complete wuss without denmark) fourth PLAY THE MAJOR POWERS UP AGAINST EACH OTHER, "Y'Know that If you give me the disputed territory your enemy won't have it and I won't let either side in" (Imagine a Sweden(11/6) with Denmark(6/4), Holland(7/3??), Hanover(5/2) and Meklenburg(2/1)!!).. total of 31/16..thats better than the turks and about the same as the prussians..(with den, hol and han as free states) gives sweden 47/25.. a reasonable power..(but crap morale),as a buffer nation you will be crapped on first, but get guarantees from both sides(i.e. ally with both sides) having never played sweden as a power take this for what it's worth. if i did have to play sweden i would try to play france, russia and britain off each other. you have 2 fleets which will be important when the time comes to bring britain down. you will have little else to spend your money on except to build up the swedish & danish navies. your position allows you to offer france support for a springboard into st. petersburg. while russia & france will want you down the line to aid with britain. play the same game spain does and make it abundantly clear that you will jump into bed with the brit should russia decide to become a nuisance, and that he better keep a large army in st petersburg for the rest of the game. it's pretty simliar to spain's position. the only threat you pose is of vindictiveness. with only 2 fleets it's not as potent. ><< >I don't know about the comment made about having a Swedish > >player that feels small. I am playing Sweden in a game, and by > >Sept 1806 (roughly), Sweden will have a full fleet, a mostly full > >Danish fleet, and about 50 factors. That's not a bad power; 55S > >and lots of army factors. > > > Compared to Russia, with over 200 factors on land, I'm not sure I'd want to > be Sweden. Even GB can muster 80. > >Yes, but what about Spain or Prussia (after a few defeats)? I don't think >anyone is arguing Sweden is a major power like Russia or France or >Austria--the manpower simply isn't there--nor does she have the wealth of >Britain. But Sweden can certainly play like Prussia or Spain, i.e. a weak >power looking for maneuvering room while the big guys crash around Europe. > There's a number of things that offset the size of Prussia and Spain. Prussia can probably secure a strong and fruitful alliance with either Russia, Austria, or France. One of the three will see an advantage to having the Prussian army and Blucher available. A smart Spanish player has more than enough options to keep the position Interesting. There's the possibility of a naval alliance against Britain, joining a land war against France, pursuing Italian holdings, or shooting for control of Northern Africa. Will all of these options, a good Spanish player needn't become a target until there's enough weight bearing against their chosen foe that Spain is probably the "straw that breaks the camel's back." Sweden doesn't have the same options available, as far as I can see. Russia has little reason to be friendly, and can probably draw British support due to the threat the Swedish navy might pose. And there really Isn't another power in any position to do much to help Sweden. France is too far away and probably doesn't have the naval mobility necessary, and Prussia and Austria (if they're smart) will be attempting to curry Russian favor (better to have them with you against France than to become a punching bag for both powers). It just doesn't strike me that Sweden rallies the necessary resources to qualify as a major power, and is limited enough in size and options that I wouldn't want to play that country.