From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EIA: The Importance of Being British
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:17:11 GMT

In article <8erO0_600VpEE1g7M7@andrew.cmu.edu> Mustafa Unlu <mustafa+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>
>1) Absolute mastery of seas guaranteed in about 2-4 years of game time
>if no counter alliance is formed. There are ways of accomplishing
>this.
>	a. Build enough ships to be able to run the forts of Brest,
>	Toulon, Cadiz and St Petersburg and still 'win' the battle.
>	This is easier with the new naval rules. Using the additional
>	modifiers I posted earlier makes it a little less easy.

I think this points out one of the flaws in the game.  The geography
of all four of the above ports is such that fleets would have to
enter them single file or at most a few ships abreast.  This would
allow the shore batteries to pick off the attackers more or less
at leisure.  Historically, "port attacks" just weren't done --
at least not very often.  I can think of only three actual cases
that qualify: Aboukir (1798), Copenhagen (1801), and Cochrane's
1809 fireship raid.  For various reasons, I think all three are
very dubious examples of an EiA port attack.
>
>Thus, GB will inevitably be the sole and only queen of the seas. 
>
This is probably as it should be.  The one factor that EiA
understates is that all major powers were constrained by shortages
of trained seamen.  Many countries could easily build more ships
than they could effectively man.  There is no way in heck that
Britain could man 210 ships (of the line), France 120, or Spain 90.
It might be interesting to allow a country to build ships up to
its counter maximum, but with declining effectiveness as they
exceed certain limits. For example, Britain would start to run into
crew quality problems once she started to put more than, say, 100
ships at sea -- but allow her to impress American seamen to increase
this limit, at the risk of an American war.  It's a thought.
>
>3) They have a small, high morale army, which can be invested in
>expeditions overseas at little risk. See someone else's post about
>this, which explained this pretty well. It basically ensures high PP
>gain for risking to lose at most 1-2 PP per battle. The most obvious
>ally for this is Turkey. 

This is what REALLY scares me about the Brits.

>4) They can subtract from the VP of other powers that they are at war
>with. This might not be considered a great advantage, but it is a
>nuisance and could make or mend some of the smaller powers' chances
>for victory. PR/SP/TR will not be gaining a heap per quarter. In fact,
>their strategy will be planned on not gaining too many VP's. Any
>subtractions from this will thus have a greater effect than the effect
>on GB's own VP subtraction. See below.

I consider this a dumb rule, as there doesn't seem to be any historical
justification for it.  It could easily lead to ludicrous games of chicken
between Britain and her opponents ("If you don't surrender to Britain,
I'll rob you of victory points to keep you from winning").  The game
plays much better if it is simply ignored.

>This is why in the last game we played we formed a pre-war alliance
>(not declared until game start of course) of Russia/France/Spain. I
>was Spain, and I gladly joined in. Of course, France had to be
>checked. He was made to realise that he was gaining the most from the
>death of the Royal Navy. It was agreed beforehand that:

In one of our most recent games, we did something very similar.  I was
Spain. Alas, I made an incredibly stupid move and got my fleet bottled
up in a port which the British army took, thus deep-sixing the fleet.
That's the OTHER thing that scares me about the Brits.

After thinking about it for a while, I think Spain's best move is to
ally with France (to reduce the risk of a French invasion) and, if
possible, with Russia.  However, instead of going to war with Britain,
the Spanish announce neutrality unless Britain begins building more
ships and/or attacks a neutral minor with a fleet.

>
>Oh btw, we *always* play with the rule that says GB and France have to
>start at war and cannot make an informal peace and have to sue for
>unconditional peace. It's a must.
>
I used to think it was a good rule myself: A Franco-British alliance
is simply a nightmare for the other powers.  However, it is not really
enforceable.  In our most recent game, I had the British.  France was
going under, and it appeared that the Austrians (run by the Metternichean
Alec Habig) were going to run away with the game.  I cooked up a deal
with France whereby he let me win enough inconsequential battles to
drive me to the top of the political point chart.  I then surrendered
unconditionally to him and gave him assistance by attacking another
of his enemies, Russia (the situation was such that I could have done
little by attacking Austria directly).


-- 
Gary Charbonneau
charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
"En avant!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board