From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EiA: Great Britain
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:02:04 GMT
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <1992Oct14.201506.223@cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@junk.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.185047.28261@ncar.ucar.edu> nexus@ylum.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeff
>	Berry) writes:
>
>>	On another point, I always have a hell of a time convincing people
>>to gang up on Britain.  It is easier (but not much) to convince them
>>France needs stomping, but no one wants to risk Fleets against GB.
>>
>
>	Great Britain does have a very strong position, but only really 
>because of France's strength.

Aaarrrg!  No way!  In fact, your statement proves Jeff's statement is correct.
Inexperienced players never see Britain's true strengths until it's too late.
In some games, of course, bad British players keep EVERYONE from seeing
British strengths.  I guess you have to see a canny player demonstrate them
before you believe!

>If Britain goes down in flames, there will be no counterweight to France;
>France will have naval superiority as well as land superiority.  Consider:
>France starts with I think 3-5 fewer ships than Spain, once the Dutch are
>factored in, as well as 5 fleets to Spain's 3 and Russia's two.  Toss in
>the Venetian Fleet and Denmark fleet, and you easily have enough fleets to
>blockade everyone else AND get some naval transport done.  Sweden's fleet
>can be neutralized by a ground campaign once Britain's fleet is neutralized
>and the crossing arrows in Scandanavia opened, as can Sicily (especially if
>the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies is not in play).

I disagree strongly with this.  It's not Britain who beats the French, it's
*LARGE* number of opposing corps, and you generally can't get them from
Britain.  After all, who cares WHERE the French can transport their army to
if they can't hold Paris?

I'm not saying the British corps and leaders and control of the seas aren't
useful in defeating the French, I'm just saying they aren't particularly
crucial.  Put it like this: if I'm an Austria/Prussia and we can have just
one more ally to attack the French, I want Russia, NOT G.B.!

>	I once played France when Britain had been knocked out of the war due
>to a particularly disasterous ground war and the capture of Wellington.  Those
>12 or so months were enough to establish control of Egypt, drub the Turks, 
>conquer Syria and Palestine, and other miscellaneous adventures in the 
>Mediterranean, and the near-total destruction of the Russian fleet.  In this 
>particular case, Britain and her Navy came back in 12 months; if her Navy had 
>been on the bottom, things would have been *quite* a different story.

Can I ask where Austria, Prussia, and Russia were all this time?

>	Every major power gains somthing in the struggle against France from
>Great Britain.  Spain gets protections for her navy (can you imagine how
>much easier an invasion of Spain would be with French naval superiority?),
>Prussia and Austria gain quite substantial subsidies, and Russia also gains
>naval protection.  Her fleet is no match for the French navy either, and a 
>naval invasion of St. Petersburg and Sweden would be most unpleasand indeed.
>All this compared to what Britain usually gains ... not a lot.  She must
>usually gain most of her Political Points from manipulation, since the
>puny army is unlikely to inflict too many defeats by itself.  Naval combat
>is unlikely unless the other players are particularly agressive and/or
>foolish.  Maybe you can get in a war with Turkey, but it's unlikely they would
>allow it to continue too long without a conditional surrender (I would be
>suprised if they didn't surrender virtually immediately, actually, and opt
>to choose the peace condition that protects them against ceding ... in light of
>their lousy chances of actually winning any battles against your 4.5 morale.
>Far better to cut your PP losses).

(I think this last part is in error - Turkey can *attempt* to surrender
conditionally to Britain, but G.B. doesn't have to *accept* the surrender.
The only surrender you have to accept is unconditional.  So could you please
run this by me again?)

Generally, I agree with much of what you are saying here, but like a lot of
things, if just all depends.  For instance, it's an advantage for Britain
and Russia to defeat France except that they have to gain lots more VPs than
the little countries.  And can they defeat those little countries themselves?
Well, maybe, but sometimes it's just easier to let France do it.  (Particularly
in the case of Spain, who has one of the lowest VP totals of the lot.)  Russia
can also gain lots from joining IN with France against Prussia and Austria,
depending on who the latter will resent more from the two-front wars.  And
if Russia's busy fighting France, whose going to take care of Turkey?
Alternatively, if Turkey helps against France sufficiently to cause the latter
to be defeated easily, what do they do when the British and the Russians
become free to knock on their door?

>So, if you are planning to gang up on Britain, carefully consider the
>consequences.  Can you thrash France almost immediately after hammering 
>Britain?

Usually, yea, if it's done right.  Another alternative is to thrash France
first, then let them surrender to everyone but G.B.

>What will the naval situation look like after the battle?  Will France come
>out even more ahead?  Is it not better to put heavy pressure on Britain to
>contribute to the continental war so that they and France will be bleeding
>themselves?

Perhaps, if you can talk them into it.  It all depends...

>Most of the other European powers like nothing better than to see British
>and French corps beating the hell out of each other on really bloody charts.
>If one or the other of them are out of it, the balance will switch
>dramatically; however, knocking out Britain influences the balance more
>because France is the second strongest naval power (since they start with
>only a couple fewer ships than Spain and a MUCH stronger economy and potential 
>for growth), whereas Britain's army by itself is not likely to scare anybody 
>too much.  Except maybe Turkey and Spain.

What you're not taking into account is the fact that if Britain is fearless
on the seas (has a navy larger than F+S+R combined, or even nearly as large,
given their naval advantages) then the can pick and choose the war they want
to get into.  An obvious choice is R+GB vs T, but there are others.  Usually,
you can find some kind of war sooner or later where your ally is trustable and
likes having Wellington, British corps, and access to the high seas on his
side.  Then, you get him to promise to halve the other guys corps if the
victim doesn't surrender to you as well, when he surrenders to your ally.
You win battles with your alliance's larger numbers, better morale, and
Wellington at the helm; you win sea battles if your opponent is dumb enough
to venture forth; and you almost always get your surrender.  If you don't,
you just pull out your corps and come back later with a new ally.  He can't
follow your corps out to sea.  It's almost foolproof.

Then, when you count your V.P.s to the end of the game and noone can possibly
catch you, you just float home to England and hide behind your "naval"
fortress.  THIS IS WHY EXPERIENCED PLAYERS FEAR GREAT BRITIAN!

>As an aside, it sounds like you folks may not be bidding enough for
>Great Britain.  In the game I'm currently in, my (winning) bid was I believe
>46; I was prepared to bid more, up to about 55 or so.

You may have a point, here.  More VPs for Britain in the ranges your talking
about will definately mitigate the problem.  You should always keep an eye
on Britain's required VPs, though, to make sure they never need less than
about 10.5 - 11 per turn to win the game - at least until very late.

Now that I read this final part, I think I see where our disagreements come
from.  Your game is incredibly skewed from strange bidding results.  If you
ever play a game out where the British and French bids are comparable (and the
British bid doesn't exceed, say 40), you'll see what I mean.

Fred
Newsgroups: rec.games.board