How to Win at Napolic Era

[joncnunn]

Attacking a RedCoat with a Valt in a sitation where there is a 25% bonus:

6 vs 7.5 [4 : 5 against you] Probability of winning 44%

Same situation with a 50% bonus

6 vs 9 [2 : 3 against you] Probablity of winning: 40%

Same situation with a 75% bonus

6 vs 10.5 [12 : 21 against you] Probablity of winning: 36%

Same sitution but with 100% bonus:

6 vs 12 [1 : 2 against you] Probability of winning: 33%

Attacking a Life Guard with a Imperial Guard in a situtation where there is a 25% defense bonus

8 vs 8.75 [32 : 35 against you] Probablitity of winning: 47%

Same situation with a 50% bonus

8 vs 10.5 [16 : 21 against you] Probability of winning: 43%

Same situation with a 75% bonus

8 vs 12.25 [32 : 49 against you] Probability of winning: 40%

Same situation with 100% defensive bonus

8 vs 14 [4 : 7 against you] Probabability of winning : 36%

Conclusions :

1. An elite inf vs elite inf matchup benifits France more than England. (But not by much)

2. In both cases you really want Cannons to get down on the loses and in fact the tech allowing advanced type cannons is worth researching.

[joncnunn]

Additionaly it is better to take the time to cross rivers at an uncontested point [failing that a weak point] than attacking a city directly across the river.

[Modo44]

Every chance you gave is under 50% for tha attacker. How does it benefit the attacker then? I must admit you lost me here.

There is another problem: Lifegurds are a little cheaper that Imperial Guards. So the ratio is slightly more in favor of Britain that straight 1-1 unit comparisons show.

[Solomwi]

I'm not advocating attacking redcoats with Voltiguers, though. Attack them with Napolean and Imperial Cavs, and Volts only if you get down to the point where one or two more attacks will get you the city and all remaining defenders are redlined.

You've got an 8 attack unit from the start, so all gaining IG does is give you 8 attack with a bonus HP. Looking at it that way, the numbers change to (assuming all vet units, and attack with IC):

85% bonus (flatland, fortified, city): Redcoat wins 33.5%, Lifeguard wins 40.3%

125% bonus (hills, fortified, city): Redcoat wins 37.8%, Lifeguard wins 42.9%

150% bonus (same as above, with river): Redcoat wins 39.7%, Lifeguard wins 43.9%

Using an IG as the attacker, Lifeguard chances for victory go to 77.0% (85% bonus), 85.0% (125% bonus) and 88.3% (150% bonus). Note that the IC numbers include the possibility of retreat. Comparing the situations of IC attacking Redcoat or IG attacking Lifeguard at 85% bonus (the most common situation faced), French victory chances are 31.6% with the IC/Redcoat and 23.0% with the IG/Lifeguard.

Obviously it's better to cross, all other things being equal, but if I have plenty of artillery and a couple of armies for the attack, I'm not really gaining anything. Also, if that extra turn allows the city to get one more Lifeguard built or moved in, my delay has cost me, more likely than not.

[Grim Legacy]

I played this scenario on Deity and found that England never launched an invasion of any consequence. A few stray units (a stack of 4 was the biggest event) were all that crossed the channel.
In this particular game I maintained only a few frigates, but never left cities empty (as that draws the PC like a moth to a flame no matter where and when). Two defenders were present at all times in the mainland (i.e. normally unthreatened) cities.

My main point is that invading England may be a fun exercise, but it also seems too effortful and slow. I found the scenario fairly demanding in terms of the victory conditions and I had to take a large portion of the continent (including Prussia and Austria, but not Spain) to fulfill them. Had I taken on England instead I might have been slowed down too much. The transport by boat alone is effortful and slow and then the English units are formidable compared to the Grenzers and other weaklings that the continental forces muster.

For France in this scenario, Spain is the most loyal non-forced ally. With the exception of the really weak nations, which are likely gone quickly, almost all others are fairly hostile and prone to ally against you.

[Solomwi]

The main benefit of invading (and eliminating) England is that you get rid of all the unhappiness you had at the start, and from that point forward can control your WW much better. You also don't have to defend western France at all once England is out of the picture, leaving you free to throw pretty much your full weight to the east (minus a few units to hold the Pyrenees if you don't eliminate Spain).

[joncnunn]

Modo, are you saying you never attack an indiviudal unit when you have more chance of that unit losing than winning?

even with you have a back up units in place to attack the hopefully weakened defender the same turn when your first attacker loses?

The Life Guard would need to be 1/8th less expensive than the Imperial Guard to have the same cost effectiveness.

Originally posted by Modo44
Every chance you gave is under 50% for tha attacker. How does it benefit the attacker then? I must admit you lost me here.

There is another problem: Lifegurds are a little cheaper that Imperial Guards. So the ratio is slightly more in favor of Britain that straight 1-1 unit comparisons show.

[joncnunn]

What???

In my game Spain was the first country to sign peace with Britian (breaking the MA against them.)

I must admit that Austria was first to sign an embargo against me [with minor nation], but they broke their embargo when latter a different minor nation declared war on Austria forcing that minor nation to also declare war on Austria.

I am currently perplexed at Spains movement actions. I needed a RoP with them and signed one, and while Austrian, Prussian, and Ottoman units crossed my territory heading into Spain (probably to the rock) Spain sent it's units across my territory and into Prussia.

Originally posted by Grim Legacy

For France in this scenario, Spain is the most loyal non-forced ally. With the exception of the really weak nations, which are likely gone quickly, almost all others are fairly hostile and prone to ally against you.

[joncnunn]

That's one difference between Diety and Monarch.

On Monarch level, the AI isn't informed enough about the Victory Conditions and so you can afford to invade England, you get the significant VP lead early simply by wiping the minor nations and the AIs aren't going to go to war with other AIs enough to seriously threaten your lead.

(Not that the AI knows any better about the Victory Conditions at higher levels, it's just crankier in general as the level increases not only against humans but other AIs)

I don't concern myself with Domination victory conditions in any game that also includes military based VPs.

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
I played this scenario on Deity and found that England never launched an invasion of any consequence. A few stray units (a stack of 4 was the biggest event) were all that crossed the channel.
In this particular game I maintained only a few frigates, but never left cities empty (as that draws the PC like a moth to a flame no matter where and when). Two defenders were present at all times in the mainland (i.e. normally unthreatened) cities.

My main point is that invading England may be a fun exercise, but it also seems too effortful and slow. I found the scenario fairly demanding in terms of the victory conditions and I had to take a large portion of the continent (including Prussia and Austria, but not Spain) to fulfill them. Had I taken on England instead I might have been slowed down too much. The transport by boat alone is effortful and slow and then the English units are formidable compared to the Grenzers and other weaklings that the continental forces muster.

For France in this scenario, Spain is the most loyal non-forced ally. With the exception of the really weak nations, which are likely gone quickly, almost all others are fairly hostile and prone to ally against you.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Modo, are you saying you never attack an indiviudal unit when you have more chance of that unit losing than winning?

I am. I almost never attack with foot units without preparation (i.e. bombing the hell out of the defenders). I make sure I have artillery and fast-movers, to minimize losses. Attacking with foot units that can die that easy is suicidal in the long run. I want the enemy dead, not just hurt.

Originally posted by joncnunn
even with you have a back up units in place to attack the hopefully weakened defender the same turn when your first attacker loses?

Even then, I would prefer fast-movers. The chance to lose valuable units is not to be taken lightly, as every piece counts.

Note that I always assume one plays on his/her apropriate level, which would probably be around Deity/Sid for you and me in this scenario. If I take it on Monarch, I bet I can win using exclusively Drafted Voltigeurs, but that does not prove anything. There is no argument if you go below your level of play (whatever that level is for each player), because in that case you can win whatever dumb fun things you do, so real strategy does not matter.

Originally posted by joncnunn
The Life Guard would need to be 1/8th less expensive than the Imperial Guard to have the same cost effectiveness.

It is even a bit cheaper, going at 130 Shields compared to 150 Shields for the Imperial Gaurd. The exact ratio is 130/150 = 0.8(6), whereas 1/8 = 0.875.

Besides, if France is the attacker (as seems to be the case here), the Imperial Guard would have to be cheaper than the Lifegaurd to be as cost-effective, and that is not the case - not even close.

[joncnunn]

I was including both the attack and defens factor of both units.

If all I would ever do is attack with an IG and never defend, it might as well be 8/1/1.

If all I would ever do is defend with a LG and never attack, it might as well be 0/7/1.

I would definately give both the IG and LG both AI offense and AI defense flags. Which is probably the case, athough I haven't looked.

I would imagine that if the SP version of this conquest could be played in MP mode with these puppet states rather than attached to the indivudal nations, that the game would start out as a race by both England & France to knock out each others puppet states and then wipe out the other weaker nations before trying to seriously engaging each other. Whichever human was first would also have an edge. (Sign MA against England with all in addition to an MPP with all, the MPP to bring them back in if they try to leave early in five turns.)

Originally posted by Modo44

It is even a bit cheaper, going at 130 Shields compared to 150 Shields for the Imperial Gaurd. The exact ratio is 130/150 = 0.8(6), whereas 1/8 = 0.875.

Besides, if France is the attacker (as seems to be the case here), the Imperial Guard would have to be cheaper than the Lifegaurd to be as cost-effective, and that is not the case - not even close.

[Modo44]

Talking about MP, you are not far from it, as this game shows: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=124194

Ok then, there is one more thing. Attacking Imperial Guards with Lifegaurds is plain old stupid (base attack lower than base defense of the attacked), so a player would naturally try not to do that. OTOH, Imperial Guards seem so strong one might feel the urge to use them more. Which is why I think Lifeguards are better - the pure psychological part does the trick. And it does so whichever of the two nations is human-controlled.

[joncnunn]

On speed of getting units across the English Channel, that's not an issue. While the troop carriers only have 3 MP [for non-Seafaring civs like France], there are three tiles that are coastal for both France and England. Load the units from the transport on the French city move onto that tile, drop them off and return the same turn. The English Men of War won't matter because your transport won't end movement outside of Port.

The real obsticle is yes, Englands units are second only to French.

I'm sure I could take Spain and most of the other powers in a cake walk. Annexing England without raizing would be more of a challenge.

Besides I already had one game where I took most of the contentint. (See the small print on the first post.)

[joncnunn]

That thread is hilarious.

Originally posted by Modo44
Talking about MP, you are not far from it, as this game shows: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=124194

[Grim Legacy]

Haha well I guess it also depends on your own actions. I closed a number of RoP deals with Spain, using them to get to Portugal and Gibraltar initially, and later to have their units reinforce my own drive to the east. With the RoP on Spain's side and not on the Russian and Ottoman's, the Spanish units have the combat advantage against them as well. They need it BTW, as they have only weak Soldados and generic cavalry.
I never sign military alliances, as the 20 turns interval before being able to sign an 'honorable' peace treaty is too often unsuitable.
There aren't too many (relevant) nations who lend themselves to a somewhat reliable state of peace other than Spain though. I was initially hoping for Russia or the Ottomans, but somehow that didn't work out. Perhaps others have had more success with them?

On the boating issue: You will need a solid number of transports to land a proper invasion party, which detracts resources from building up the fighting force. Perhaps the tactic used here is to land an army first? I'm the guessing the computer would leave the army alone...

On the unhappiness thing: I bit the bullet and switched to Monarchy right from the start. I believe I made a quick comparison of my income and science output between the two governments and found that with the need for luxury % under Republic, it didn't offer any benefit at all. Perhaps this is different if you manage to get some fair lux trades going, but in my game the Ottomans (who hoard the most lux) were quite unwilling to trade even on very unfavorable terms... as were most others (not due to me breaking any deals by the way, I don't do that).

Originally posted by joncnunn
What???

In my game Spain was the first country to sign peace with Britian (breaking the MA against them.)

I must admit that Austria was first to sign an embargo against me [with minor nation], but they broke their embargo when latter a different minor nation declared war on Austria forcing that minor nation to also declare war on Austria.

I am currently perplexed at Spains movement actions. I needed a RoP with them and signed one, and while Austrian, Prussian, and Ottoman units crossed my territory heading into Spain (probably to the rock) Spain sent it's units across my territory and into Prussia.