From: sigurdt@idt.unit.no (Sigurd Thunem)
Subject: Re: EIA: Nutshell News "Words of Wisdom"
Followup-To: sigurdt@idt.unit.no
Reply-To: sigurdt@idt.unit.no (Sigurd Thunem)
Organization: Div. of CS & Telematics, Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:00:47 GMT

I am posting this for a friend of mine that does not have net access. 

- Sigurd Thunem  (sigurdt@idt.unit.no)

-------------------- Start message ----------------------------------

Greetings from Trondheim, Norway.

In our gamers club in Trondheim Empires in Arms is a popular game.
Myself I have tried it five times I think, two times as Prussia, two
times as Spain and once as GB.

I have some comments to your analysis. First of all I would claim
that the EiA as it is today is not as good a game as it could be. The
problem, clearly illuminated by the analysis of Spain and Prussia is
the focus of the game. The focus of the game is always to make a big
anti french coalition and clobber France, and try to get the best out
of it in the process and stay together to the next time. For France
it is to avoid the coalition and beat the other separately.

France and England are simply to strong compared to the other
nations. It is not really a seven sided game. The game is much more
interesting when it is equalized a little. Here in Trondheim we have
tried an australian version, where both moral and generals and
starting provinces varies. (Unfortunately I do not know where to get
the rules from this version from, but they originated from a guy in
Melbourne. I really reccomend them, although we do have some
suggestions for improvement.) This created a more intersting situation
with more flux.


In such a situation Spain could avoid the "lackey role". Having
played Spain in a grand Campaign game I really understand the
frustration and problems of Spain. France and England do not like you
and they are to strong to be trusted. (I had a lot of fun in the
beginning by conquering the Western Mediterrean while the other were
busy cutting each others throats. In 1808 England made a strategic
mistake with their fleets and Spain (with Portugal and Naples) and
France beet their chanel fleet twice. I continued my fleet victories
by beeting an inadequate english fleet outside of Marocco, chasing it
to Malta where it combined with a Turkish fleet, blocking both fleets,
taking Malta by storm (it was undergarrisoned) and sinking 48 british
and 20 turkish ships at the harbor. It was great fun, but in the long
run it did not help. Englands resources are to big. And the bastards
got Russian fleet help. In 1812 the russians agreed that was a
mistake, because a rebuilt british fleet took the harbor of Riga
and sunk their former comrades.) However the problem seen from Spain
and Prusssia is simple: they are too weak. A downscaling of France
(and GB) is necessary.

In such a situation a war between Prussia and Austria might not be
stupid, as it definitely is in the standard game.

The Prussian analysis I agree with mostly, be friends with Austria
and avoid two front wars.

Otherwise: Drop the economic manipulation rules. France managed to
stay on 10 VP using a +2 manipltation. This is far to much. VP should
be scored through battles and wars. If France manages to stay on 10
VP he can outwait the others and force them to declare war on him and
then a conditional surrender does not hurt. The same is even more
true if a country like Spain or Prussia ends up with 8 or 9 VP, which
is no problem with economic manipulation and peace.

The optional rules suggested seems okay. Especially I liked the peace
rules.

We have some house rule which worked extremely well. For cities there
is always a militia garrison equal to the number of towers (1-5), or
if a capital or "notch" city an infantery garrison. This forces an
invading army to always attack (siege or assault) a city, not merely
passing throug and dropping of factors. (Place counters there when
the city is under attack)

To conquer a minor country: All its cities must be conquered, not
only the capital.

Pay for garrisons, I think this was suggested by the australians.

And: pay 1 MP maintainance for each corps, this reduces the size of
the armies dramatically.

Else: have fun.

Thats all folks.

Hans Torvatn, Hexagon gamers Club, Trondheim, Norway.




























Newsgroups: rec.games.board