From: Michael Hayman Subject: La Guerre De L'Empereur-more thoughts Here is what i have written thus far since my initial review. Thoughts on this very interesting (if still not perfect) game. I have my variant rules which I shall post soon enough on my website (look for it not earlier than next wee-- my site is being rebuilt)look to: Http://Haymancelticjewelry.com/notbusiness/games/LaGuerre.txt Grognard.com has my initial review as well as another player's replay. Check it out. > > This is a report from Stephen Berry concerning the > in-progress game of La Guerre de l'Empereur at the Westbank > Gamers: > > La Guerre de l'Empereur by Operations Studies Group > simulates the Napoleonic Wars between 1805-1815. Each > player controls the diplomatic and military actions of a > European "great power." Victory points are scored by > acquiring territories and by > > winning wars and battles. > > If it sounds similar to Empires in Arms, that's because it > is; in fact many of the details and "chrome" of La Guerre > seem to be copied straight from EIA. The main difference is > that the board is much simpler and more abstract, which > makes for a faster playing time. > > The most interesting aspect of LG is its procedure for > resolving battles. Each combatant places his divisions > (usually between 10-50) in four sectors of the battle map, > representing the three sectors of the front and > > a reserve sector. Then the two armies take turns attacking > each other with chits until one side gains initiative and > there is a vacant sector in the enemy's front. The battle > system is fun and has the flavor of a real Napoleonic > battle; however it has drawbacks. A major battle can last > 30-45 minutes, boring the non-involved players. Also, there > seems to be > > little opportunity to inflict disproportionate casualties on > the enemy--a 50-division army can easily crush a 20-division > army, but it will probably suffer a loss of around 20 > divisions in doing so. Finally, generals play a very small > role within battles because the player acts as his own > general--an interesting twist but it limits the role of > Napoleon. > > Another interesting twist is the diplomatic rules. > Alliances are very rigid and leave little flexibility for > their members. If two nations ally, they are > > not only obliged to defend each other, but cannot declare > any wars which the ally will not join. Furthermore, a > nation cannot surrender to another without surrendering to > all of the other nation's allies. > > In our game, France and Russia went to war against Austria > at the beginning of the game. A small, leaderless Austrian > army was beaten by a large French stack under Napoleon, but > manage to cause significant > > damage to the French. A quick Austrian surrender prevented > the aggressors from profiting from the war because the > surrender terms are very (and a historically) limited. > Spain rolled successfully for control of Turkey and joined > Britain in a war against Russia; the nations agreed to a > truce after Britain smashed the Russian Baltic fleet and > took all of Sweden. France the declared war on Prussia, who > was supported by Austria. Napoleon smashed the Prussian > army but again suffered terrible casualties; meanwhile the > Prussian army instantly regrew to full strength because of > another strange rule which allows unlimited army-building > when enough cash is available. Napoleon has > spent the rest of the game running from the much larger > Prussian and Austrian forces. > > LG is a new game and this is the first time for any of us to > play it, so these comments may be premature or incomplete. > It promises to be a quicker, easier version of EIA which we > can play when a real EIA game > > is impossible. Although some players said they liked LG (or > at least aspects of it) better than EIA, the author feels > that it is too abstract and over-simplified to measure up to > the greatest of wargames, and > > therefore it will always be known as "Empires in Arms Lite." > > Editor's Note: The players in this colossal struggle are > Willard Fann, Stephen Berry, Mike Hayman, Trevor Antczak, > Eric Allemand and Clyde Hayman. > > -- > Greg J. Schloesser > The Westbank Gamers: > http://home.earthlink.net/~gschloesser/ In the above replay it wasn't stated that the truce with Russia came about after a very effective Russian raid on constantinople knocking the NPC out of the war before the southern front could be created. the Turks were completely smashed. GB later recieved control of the Turks. My two cents on the game thus far. Battles are not quite what I would like. As has been stated there is no benefit for mass/economy of force in the battles and hence it is just attrition. I see France's gripe about the complete rebuilding of the Prussian army (France moved after the prussian during the turn and the Prussians then got a chance to build before the French could capitalize upon the situation. Net result France got to rebuild too, so the forces are the same as before the battle. Not very dramatic change. I am awaiting eagerly the "advanced" rules from OSG (its not a flaw--its a feature!) and I hope combat is overhauled. I have already toyed with a variant for the combat rules to reflect mass but I defer to alter the game to much until i see the "official stuff". In the games system's defense, I believe the Austria, Prussian and French commanders all were prolongings battles by conservative plans of action. Both chose to commit reserves rather than risk losing initiative with a rushed attack. I observed a couple of instances where the although there was risk of a setback, a little more balls might carried the battle, as I have yet to fight a battle, I cannot say for sure and am probably wrong. I am unhappy with the invasion rules and straights arrows. Certain areas are impervious to threat once a corp is present (for example Morocco in North africa could not be forced from cadiz or invaded from sea once a corps is there. If you have a corps in Algiers, and Tunisia as well it will take an invasion into Libya or further east to get a toehold to attack later. Absurd. There are plenty of holes in the rules that just reek of rushed efforts to get the game on the market in time for the big conventions. A shame, because the game occupies a desparatly waiting to be filled niche. But that said I think the game is more than salvagable and will still turn into a really great game. I am not unhappy with the political rules per se. I think the alliance rules and enforced peace treatment is superior to EiA. It does have a flaw in the surrender rules in how spoils are distributed but that againI think will be resolved with errata, or house rules. Loser gets to pick the territory ceded! (yeah, I really wanted Corsica!) I do have some problems with the surrender VP cost vs. DOW costs ratio. I think it should be equal. As it stands now if a power is declared war on by a single power and immediately surrenders it will lose 10 vps (5 for the surrender and 5 more if the victor takes VPs) but the victor will lose a net of 5 (10 to dow, +5 if he takes vp for the surrender) and the loser keeps all his territory. Since an enforced peace then takes effect the loser can only be forced to lose 10vp per year (it slows his chances for victory but the winner is also setback--yet he won! Players of Spain and Turkey can really benefit from this particularly if their foes wish to take away minors. As corps prevent invasions from sea, they can garrison all of their minors and it becomes nearly impossible to take away their minors before they surrender! Mike Hayman Repost of Consim discussion by Mike Hayman: We have spent two nights on the game(8hrs )and have yet to get to 1808. France got a pyrric victory over Prussia after trashing Austria on the first turn( The Russians attacked Austria!). Austria played terrible and sent Charles off into Italy with France still to move. Russia played stupid and lost two fleets to the British over Sweden. Spain went to Africa got involved in the Russian war as a GB ally (Turkish NPC ally as well but the expedition was defeated. Negotiated peace.)I may well drop EiA attempts if the chrome level increases slightly. I actually prefer the diplomatic rules. Spain is ahead on points with Prussia doing next best. I am in third as GB and am about to battle with Spain but have built up a very powerful fleet and I have Port and Sweden. France is on the defensive and about to surrender to Austria and Prussia. The combat system seems very strange to me. Losses in combat are to equal. It seems that it really makes no difference as to which tactical option to use, he with the most troops will win in the end. Still not fully formulated in my opinions yet. Artillery never seems to get to have an impact other than allowing a combined arms. Tactical leadership doesn't seem to really mean that much in your ability to defeat your opponent. Napoleon vs unled still resulted in about equal casulties. Hate the revision about NPC allies having to be completely conquered to force Surrender. Discovered this after we forced the Ottomans to surrender by a lost capital. Naval invasions were held to no more than 4 rolls on the seige table rather than exhaustion of the division. Clarifications needed: 1) can a stack pick up other stacks (previously unmoved) enroute to a battle? Land or Sea 2)Does the empty sector have to have enemy troops in the opposite for it to cause the defeat when losing initiative? 3) if a one-time event is rolled but the criteria to allow it are not met, does the roll count and thus no longer possible? 4) Does a fleet leaving a port pay one or two for the first sea zone entered (ie +1 for leaving the port and 1 for the sea zone)? 5) Can Constantinople block movement by hostile fleets through the seazone? 6) Can a just invaded port serve as a base for a fleet? 7) Do ships that attempt interception move into the sea zone? Even if unsuccessful? 8) Is there a straits crossing arrow between the Jutland and Copenhagen? It also seems strange that armies cannot cross if a corps in on the other side but navies have no effect. Hence Denmark with a corps within is unassailable by any means. 9) Just how is the surrender conditions handled? The rigamorol of offering to one player a first choice or acceptance of one of the other two has absolutely no effect. The rules are also inherantly contradictory. It says that only one part of a group may be taken by one power yet it is written that it is possible for 2 or more provinces to be lost. Rushed rules typesetting. And the player mat typos regarding econ and pol values! 10) Do lost provinces from surrenders have to come from conquered home provinces? Or from any. Do they have to touch a border? 11) May negotiated peaces be offered to just one of an alliance? if accepted is this a breaking of the alliance? part 2 of Consim post: more questions not included in my first query. 12) Can a just conquered province by one stack then be moved through by a subsequent stack? 13) Can a player move a stack through a non-conquered province without laying seige if just passing through to pursue a field army that just retreated. If not in pursuit can it still do this? 14) If a seige fails with one stack, can a separate stack (not originating in the same province) also seige the same province subsequent to the first attempt? 15) if allies win a battle do they all get full VP or are they divided between them? 16) if Spain is completely conquered by France who has Joseph on the Throne, what happens to its fleets that have no base. Can they use an ally's? If they have no ally? Running report of our game thus far: night 3 (14hrs of play) Russia starts the night by declaring war on Austria (Prussia DoWs on Russia next go round) in hopes of repeating his victory over Austria in 1805. France backpedals as well as the Austrians and Prussians shift to deal with the Russians. GB invades Spain with a Turkish NPC ally. The war with Spain is over quick but poor garrisoning on the part of Britain costs him Portugal in exchange for Spain losing North Africa to Turkish NPC attacks. But a missed interception allows a Spainish corps to knock the Turks out of the war (more on this). Spain surrenders and actually ends up with more vp in territory than he lost. Russia, Austria, Prussia broker a temporary truce (not a peace!) with GB's subsidization and enforcement to allow Russia a chance to DOW Spain and defeat the Spanish in constantinople and prevent the Turkish surrender (he had gotten control of a gone Neutral Turkey (French die roll)in the bidoff. He fails the seige roll, and then procedes to break the truce w/Au/Pr. This was a mistake as Russia procedes to get more or less rolled back with heavy losses. Austria regains all her territory back minus Naples (which had revolted and was later taken by Britain) France, Austria and Prussia negotiate a peace. France (augmented by Joseph on the throne) attacks Spain. Spain is more or less conquered-- he has his fleets, Murcia and Palestine. No army and little money. And he cannot surrender. Game points thus far Spain 82% Britain 67% Prus, Austria, Russia are all around 54-57% and France is at 45%. Spain is still winning but will only be able to garner 1-2vp (<1%) for awhile so he is probably out of it. Guerillas as extra troops are useless for game balance or simulation. They never came up in the 5 spanish battles. There is no ulcer, the Guerrillas just aren't that big a deal if france has defeated the Spanish in at least one battle and has lost its tax base. The question now in our game is whether Britain can hold off the combined navies of the rest of Europe. Austria and Prussia already are talking to Russia (A and P earned 14vp each)in battles against Russia and are happy now. Russia recognizes his error. Turkey is a French ally. Spain is hoping to broker a chance to regain some of her home territory by selling the services of her intact fleet to France. Fleets are about even but the potential allies are all scattered. I think Britain will win this one. Overall opinion of the game is that tactical battles take too long to play out (30 minutes easily for a big one) and that the losses are too equal. Armies and navies rebuild too quickly and all players have too much money it seems (except maybe for Spain). Spain cannot win the game if Joseph is put on the Throne which has an 18% chance of occuring in a year with 6 players. Guerilla rules should be something akin to rebellions in conquered Spanish provinces, otherwise Spain might as well be a NPC in future games. This may be because the Russian has been so antagonistic to A/P they have been willing to let France be. Other games might show otherwise but i sure wouldn't want to play Spain on the basis of this game. Even Turkey is better off. What is this forum's experience? We found it somewhat incredible that the artificial nature of game found Russia agreeing with its enemies that it needed to try to go off and fight against another power completely "because he was close to winning" but without some form of historical aspirations rules that is too be expected. I can't wait for the advanced rules, I am already boilerplating new chrome to the game. EiA lite indeed.