From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EIA: General things(moderately long)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:46:16 GMT

In article <gernarG00WcD81Q0Bb@andrew.cmu.edu> Mustafa Unlu <mustafa+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>I'll try to cover most of yesterday's and today's postings.
>
>o I agree with Gary and Alec that port attacks are not handled well by
>the game. Nor are they adequately handled in the _General_ variant
>rules.
>
>Suggestion: Quick fix. Double port strength of certain ports in the
>game. Clearly, historical/geographical research is needed before this
>is attempted.

Quicker fix: Disallow port attacks entirely.  If you're wondering about
what to do with those port gun numbers if you do this, use them as a 
"stacking limit": No more ships may be allowed in the port than the
number in the box (excluding ships under construction).  This might
force people to spread their ships around a bit more; in our group
non-British ships tend to huddle together a lot for protection.  Some
ports don't have guns -- allow ten ships in each of those ports.
>
>o Optional rules: In the same issue of the General as the new naval
>rules, there is an article about crossing arrows as well. Did this
>one cover the Channel arrow? I though that its treatment of channels
>was quite well done and easy to implement.
>4~
>Suggestion: Allow the channel arrow (either the vanilla arrow from
>opt. rules or as a Type II arrow from article) but allow no crossings
>between December and April inclusive. This crossing in winter/spring
>couldn't even be attempted during 1944! Or allow only corps of 5 factors
>or less, to simulate small raids.
>
>o House rules: I promised that I would post some of ours: Here are the
>ones that I can remember (Eiji, can you check me out on this?):
>
>	1. Artillery Corps in sieges: Gets a +1 to siege die roll.
>Needless to say, favors the Russians and the French. Highly arguable,
>but we used it anyway.
>
>	2. Liberation of serfs: Russia abolishes serfdom. Economic
>values of Russian provinces drop, but manpower is increased. Economic
>values go back up after a while, manpower drops to serf times. Can't
>remember the details on this one. This was suggested but never
>implemented.
>
>	3. Scorched Earth: We allowed only Russia to do this. Any one
>province can be declared to be scorched per turn if Russia is at war
>and enemy corps inside Russian border. All areas lose two forage
>values for one year. Cost is 1 PP per scorched province. I see no
>reason why other powers should not be able to do this, perhaps at a
>higher PP cost.
>
>	4. Nizam-i Cedid: These were the "Guard" of the Turkish army.
>Led by Western educated leaders, they were certainly better than the
>normal Janissaries. They held Napoleon up in Syria in 1802(?). So they
>get 3.5 morale but cost 1 more than normal infantry/cavalry.
>
I like the idea of some kind of special rule for the Nizam-i Cedid
if only because I'd like to see a rule for removing the corps to
simulate what happened to it when the Janissaries overthrew Selim III.

>There were more of those but I can't remember them now.
>
>o Casi Bellorum: I *like* the idea. But definitely implement Alec's
>idea of casus belli only where you can have a +1 modifier. But what to
>do if you're in the Dominant Zone (and therefore have a +1 for
>everybody)? But this rule is the best tweak to the diplomacy system I
>have seen so far. No more the mad and total rush to minors before
>someone else gets them. The fear of a casus belli should slow that,
>but not for France, hmmm.
>
>Suggestion: How about letting each MP start with a number of
>'interests' (yet another stolen idea from Pax Britannica). These are
>placed in minors of your choice. Initial interests can only be placed
>in minors where you have a + modifier from the Minors Table.
>They have to be secretly written and placed during the 1st Diplomacy
>Phase, two interests placed in the same minor are treated like two
>DoW's on the same minor, but the power that backs down gets a Casus
>Belli and if none back down, they both get a Casus Belli. 
>A major power gets free access from only those minors that they have an
>interest in; otherwise, they have to force access. (I've always
>thought that being able to romp across neutral space with huge armies
>was not quite right) The minors that you have an interest in are
>considered to be in 'your sphere'. If someone DoW's a minor where you
>have an interest in, you get a Casus Belli.
>Interests can also be purchased and placed anywhere during play, again
>during the 1st Diplomacy phase of each year.
>Placing in a minor where you have no natural + modifier costs money.
>These purchased interests  should be pretty highly priced. One can
>also 'upgrade' interests (at a high price again) and 'acquire' the
>minor through peaceful means but not before 12 months of having placed
>the interest.
>
>I'm just churning out these ideas as I type. They might be totally
>outrageous and unworkable. So go ahead flame me.  :-)
>
>o Variant rule: As long as we are considering tweaks to the game, how
>about adding the following as a peace condition?
>
>B.7 (or whatever number is next) Lend-a-Leader: The victor has the
>right to use any one of the loser's leaders for a year. The chosen leader
>is retired; and immediately appears during this Reinforcement Phase with
>one of the Victor's Corps. He is thereafter treated as a leader of
>that nationality except that he is always inferior to all the other
>leaders of the winning nationality. 'A' leaders and Nelson are exempt
>from this rule. If the lent leader is captured during his service to
>the winner, he is immediately repatriated to the original owner.
>
>and addition to the A table: Need not lend a leader.
>
>
>OK, I have rambled enough.. I like the discussion though. Keep posting
>and (maybe) we'll surpass the BattleTech posters (Not!)
>
>M.












































































-- 
Gary Charbonneau
charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
"En avant!"