Game 3

Stil a few problems, would this apply only to active units in december? What if there is not enough new recruits to fill up the armies, would the army get inceased SL or recruits be taken from the civilan economy, causing problems?

Yes but that is the point it would cause you problems, you would have to search for recruits across the globe, which historically happened. Armies were usually understrength in peace time & brought upto strength in times of war.

I think you are right it sounds complicated, but I'm sure a few factors to have an effect on EH would focus the minds of all of us. It would encourage more historical play. Armies were small & a preciuos commodity.

what we have got to be careful of and I have seem this in other games is making the game over complicated so it loses it fun factor. 

Not every one loves stats some just want to play and enjoy the game, make it too complicates (and i have had some write to me stating they think the game is already hard!)  players leaves and Richard loses money and customers which he could not afford to.

As Russia i used Russians for the military and others to fill the economic stuff etc.

I also think Richard has factored this issue in to a degree, at least in the larger states.  One thing I have noticed is that as a population gets larger the recruit base, as a percentage, does drop.

In one game I am Scotland, pop under 1 million, when economy was '5' my recruit base was 0.5% of population.

In one game I am a Chinese province, population 30 million, when economy was '5' my recruit base was about 0.15% of popualtion

Some time back I played Russia in a game, population between 15 and 20 million (can't remember exactly), recruit base when economy was '5' was 0.25-0.3% of population.

So to me, this means that at least in larger nations, there is an allowance for replacing losses due to natural death, retirement, etc already in place.  It's not maybe present in the smaller nations but as they have relatively small recruit bases in the first place that at least makes them more playable and as they have much fewer numbers of recruits anyway the inflation isn't an issue

I think Richard has the recruit problem spot on.

It would get too complicated and much more work and less enjoyment if he tampered with it. For example you cannot deduct recruits each year as a percentage of army wasteage. Because what happens when you get nations at war. That will effect all your army numbers,what do you deduct for this.? How do you know exactly how many armed forces members to lose dureing battles.

I think the game has so much to it already, the last thing players would like would be alot more complication. If you deduct numbers of recruits or serving armed forces members each year. You can bet players will feel hard done by at times and complain.

For me. Much more enjoyable the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

jamesbond007 wrote:I think Richard has the recruit problem spot on.

It would get too complicated and much more work and less enjoyment if he tampered with it. For example you cannot deduct recruits each year as a percentage of army wasteage. Because what happens when you get nations at war. That will effect all your army numbers,what do you deduct for this.? How do you know exactly how many armed forces members to lose dureing battles.

I think the game has so much to it already, the last thing players would like would be alot more complication. If you deduct numbers of recruits or serving armed forces members each year. You can bet players will feel hard done by at times and complain.

For me. Much more enjoyable the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

correct....

Deacon wrote:
I think Richard addressed this at one point, and said that the constraints just frustrated players, so he permitted the inflation, since it effected everyone equally, the net result was the same without frustrating players.

So battles are larger than historical, but the net effect on game balance is the same.

I think this is true in the early years of the game and if all positions are played.

But if players armies are just allowed to build up and build up with no effective limit it would seem to result in:

1) Played powers with large recuit numbers become overly strong compared to their smaller rivals and positions which have not been played for some time.

2) If for example Sweden starts with say 80,000 troops V 150,000 Russians its still got a fighting chance at 1:2 in the GNW but if Sweden add's say 10,000 recruits & Russia 50,000 per year for ten years its got 180,000 V 750,000 Russians odds are now more like 1:4 and its not got a hope.

Plus at 80,000 V 150,000 its close enough for small allies like Saxony, Denmark, Polish types to be important once the Russian Army is 750,000 strong a few Danes at not going to make a difference.

3) Unchecked build up means that smaller allied states, or even large states which have not been active for a while all start to feel irrelevant to the game and are more likely to drop out. While larger positions can become an admin nightmare for a new player.

Its probably too much of a problem to introduce into existing games but having to spend 10% of your armed forces strength in recruits as well as cash to keep them at existing strength may be worth considering?

To give one example if a major power like France, Spain or Russia losses say 20 Lineships in battle with the Royal Navy this should hurt. Currently its shrug shoulders and spend 20% of a years recruits to replace.

But if Franch is fully maxed out and needs 50,000 recruits to support its 500,000 strong army and navy it becomes more of a problem and you can see why a Nation may wish to not expand its forces to full potential size in peace even if it can afford too (unless its Prussia of course).

This also makes allies and hired help more important as they were historically. Thus England with loads of cash and a huge fleet may end up being forced to hire German Troops & press the cargo of the odd slave ship or two to keep its West Indies & Africa Squadrons up to strength.

Ardagor wrote:

Hapsburg wrote:A great shame as I said to Richard earlier, after 25 years!

I will join another game when a suitable position becomes available and play that to the end too!

Can't fault the way you ran the Americas Republic, well played and good luck if you carry on in another game.

Tudor

Thank you

I do have a few regrets and things I should have done better/sooner such as

Building a strong force of horse sooner (drill/horse obedience) to take on the French curassiers at their own game.

Pushing the French harder in the Battle in the Wilderness, his force may have cracked there if I had gone all in but I was a bit timid, winter was fast approaching and my SL was high in several units.

I should have sent an army into the interior to flush out the French at Ft. Joseph/Ft. St. Louis. It was the plan for the coming spring but it should have been done years ago.

Other than that I was relatively satisfied with the the performance of my forces.

If you want a 2nd go at playing English/Scots Protestants exiled to the America's and faced with impossible problems G7 would seem to have promise:

- The French twisted enough English Arms to get James II back on the throne of England & William of Orange exiled to Scotland.

- Under infamous Clause 4 of the Concorde of Bristol 1705 a signed copy of which was in La Gloire du Roi July 1705 James II & Louis XIV also agreed that "King James will follow the wishes of the English North American Colonies and grant their independence if that is what they truely desire. He hopes the Colonies will retain their trade links with England but reminds them that independence means that they are responsible for their own defence and should make their own treaties with their enemies".

- With a Catholic Jacobite govt in England the semi on their own colonies......most of which followed Lord Protector Coote in claiming to still be loyal to King William........were reinforced by 50,000 plus English Puritans, the HWIC, a Scots Fleet and a load of French Protestant Exiles inc the new town of New Orleans.

- So far so very G3 apart from the Scots connection.

However and why life may be tougher for the American in G7:

a) James III son of the murdered James II allowed his dear dead dads & Louis XIV wishes to slip his mind and flogged the colonies to the Czar of Russia on a long lease. So the American colonists are now fighting the Czar (backed by James III) to protect the freedom won for them by Louis XIV of France.

b) New bunch of French Ministers have decided that French exiles and New Orleans are still French and have sent troops to enforce Royal control.

c) The major past influences in the colonies in the past were the HWIC & the Sons of Liberty. Generally viewed as two halves of the breathern of the coast they could not stand each other. Result the English American Colonies have got the highest concentration of double crossing piractical turncoats, Swashbucklers & general bad eggs in any game of Glory du Roi.

Military options probably worse than G3, Diplomatic options would seem to involve ability to bluff on a fairly empty hand and a envoy who can hold his Vodka!

To be fair to anyone considering to take up the cause of the Americas in G7 there are a few points they should bear in mind.

Eleven of the Thirteen colonies are still with King James, curently being looked after by the benevolant Russian admistrators.

Two of the colonies are under the control of HWIC/UDP ,

So unless an agreement is made with either of those two players then you would automatically stumble inot some kind of conflict.