From: dodd@csl.sri.com (Chris Dodd)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EiA: Solve a problem
Date: 25 Jan 1993 14:54:57 -0800
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: pekoe.csl.sri.com
Keywords: Empires in `Arms

sclera@milori.ccit.arizona.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.112746.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> bob@sclera.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>>Time for y'all to display your Empires in Arms wisdom.  1805 scenario,
>>>we are in April.  France has crushed Austria in one month, so the HRE lost
>>>2/3 of her corps and Mack was captured.  Before that, war erupted between
>>>Prussia (me) and Russia over Denmark.  We reached an informal peace after
>>>Alexander botched an attack from Copenhagen.  Oh, and the Austrians refused
>>>our summons, so that when France attacked, justice was served 8^|
>>>
>>>* My question: Given the botch job in the game so far, should the Russians
>>>and Prussians DOW on France now, or wait for them to come for us?  Natch,
>>>the Brits will fund us, ship us, etc.  Yes, if victorious we intend to 
>>>keep the French fleet intact at all costs.
>>>
>From memory - and since I am a non-fanatic this is not accurate :) -
>France is way ahead, in a -2 box in the Dom. Zone.  The rest of us are 
>scatterred about the next lower zone.  Manipulation is allowed, but only
>the English use it, at +1, so far.  France is on the way to creating Italy,
>which could keep him from squishing a neighbor for a while.  

The situation doesn't look good.  France will likely be manipulating at
+2 soon, so will rack up VPs for at least a little while.  My advise is
to wait until 1806 (when you get Blucher, Wellington, and a decent sized
British army) and attack then, if France doesn't attack sooner.  There's
almost no chance that France will let you wait until Austria can get in
on the game; he'll attack well before the enforced peace elapses.

If you can get at least tacit support from Spain, Turkey, and Austria
(they don't attack you), a British/Prussian/Russian alliance should be
able to at least damage the French.  It all comes down to how much you
can trust the Russians -- If the French sue for peace and the Russians
offer conditional while you demand unconditional, you're sunk.

All in all, while the English are quite dangerous, the French are
moreso.  The real threat with England is that he'll get up to a
10VP/qtr dominant box and stay there indefinitely with +2 manipulation.
If he can sit secure behind his fleet, he'll coast in to an easy
win.  France, on the other hand, can get into this cycle where they
alternately thrash their neighbors, average around 12VP/qtr, and
are basically unstoppable.

To deal with France, you need an alliance capable of beating him on
the battlefield.  To deal with the English you need only watch how
many PPs (and VPs) the English are getting.  Don't let him rack up
PPs by putting a single corps with your army -- insist that he send
a real force along.  Don't let him destroy the French fleet in port.
Don't ever put fleets where they can be easily attacked and sunk by
the British.

>We are also using the alternate naval combat rules, and no crossing arrow
>@Calais.  The group was convinced that the new rules were reasonable after
>we did a trial battle, English vs. Americans.  The English won, got 13 hulks,
>but lost Nelson.  There was much rejoicing.

I've never played with these rules so I'm not sure who they benefit.
The English will do well in the PP department, and win more battles,
but the casualties on both sides will be much higher.  The chance of
Nelson being killed is fairly small (about 4.5% if he uses his +2
bonus), so that usually not much of an issue.

The only real problem I see with the advanced naval rules is that I
can't see why anyone would ever choose anything but `Melee'.  The worst
chart for the Melee-ing player is really the Melee vs Melee one.  If
the other guy picks anything else, you have at least a 50% of closing
right away and winning.

>My concern is that even should France be placid for a while, it could take a
>VERY long time for Austria to recover.  Meanwhile, France will do well,
>England will do almost as well, and the rest of us will just weaken each
>other.  Or am I just being paranoid - er, more paranoid than usual?
Well, from you description above, England isn't doing too well (he's
not in the dominant zone).  This really depends on what your bids were;
look at how many VP/qtr each player needs to average to win by the end
of 1815.  My feeling from playing the game several times, is that its
impossible to stop both England and France from winning; one of the
two will win.  Part of this is the nature of the victory conditions,
which tend towards several-way ties.

One option I've come up with in the spirit of 11.9.2 (Great Britain and
France at war):  England and France cannot both win; if during the
final victory points step both have satisfied their victory conditions,
neither is considered to have won.  This can result in a game which
nobody wins.

I think you might even be able to remove the restrictions of 11.9.2 with
this one.

Comments?

Chris Dodd
dodd@csl.sri.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board