From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: EIA optional rules
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:55:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.204150.3791@pei.com> fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>In article <Bw5vMx.1DG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>>I would suggest using all the optional rules except for the channel crossing
>>arrow.  This is the only rule that severely change the balance of play,
>
>True, but I personally think it has a *good* effect on play balance.  It
>hurts the British and French and helps everybody.  And who does everyone
>complain about being too strong in this game?...
>
>I do concede it may not be very realistic, though.

This is one that I've never played with, but it seems to me that it really
hurts the British to the benefit of the French.  How does it hurt the French?

>>all the rest are merely nifty addtions that make the game much more fun.  If
>>you have any specific complaints about a particular rule, I could rebut them,
>>but I can't think of any reason NOT to use them right now (and my group of
>>gamers is really contentuous, if anyone can shoot down a rule, it's these
>>guys :).
>
>OK, here's a few complaints:
>
>1) The rules about specifying where ships are being built is too much paper-
>work to be worthwhile.  It's much more realistic, but it has such a small
>game function that it's not worth the bother.

Always used this one, never had any problems.  Just write down the place of
construction's initials next to the ship builds.  Ships build at a slow rate
and most people put them in one place to protect them anyway.  It's got a nifty
factor in that now you can torch ships in a port you just captured (and looting
is always fun!).  An interesting  house rule would be to capture them somehow,
but we've never worked out a good way to do it.

>2) Proportional army losses affect play balance in a way I don't like at all.
>One of the Turks main diplomatic cards is to offer to take losses in battle.

I consider this a fundamental rule (along with things like cav superiority,
which is also an optional rule for some reason).  Without it, weird things
happen on a regular basis - the brits never take casualties, minor country
corps get used as ablative, etc.  Too many chances for gamesmanship.  Also very
hard to justify historically.  As for the turks, well, I don't think I'd want
fuedal corps mixed in with my troops anyway - morale is too important (unless
you're trying to fight a war of attrition, and then it's very hard to get
enough turks to the front to make a difference).

>3) Allowing people to pay to upgrade militia makes a travesty of Prussia's
>one interest advantage - stockpiling manpower points.

This is a little shady at first glance.  However, there's one big limitation on
converting militia : it can't be done while you're at war.  With anyone.  In
general, this is when it would be most useful, and this is where Prussia comes
in to it's own ("Oh, france just attacked me, huh?  Now I can justify the price
of building all this infantry to Britain and feed them to right where they're
needed.").  Note that this is what was intended to be simulated : Prussia had a
really decent national gaurd type system.

The militia conversion rule is most often put to use in post-war
reorganizations ("Now that we have time and money, let's teach these goobers
how to march.").  Prussia can do this as well as the next power with the
optional rule, but it's manpower saving trick alone is no good for this
application.  Prussia's advantage also lies in that it can save those odd
manpower points, admittidly small, but then again 2 inf a year is a sizable
fraction of its production :)

	Alec