home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.games.board
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att-out!cbfsb!cbnewsf.cb.att.com!deej
- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
- Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
- Message-ID: <1992Nov18.215854.27289@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
- Sender: news@cbfsb.cb.att.com
- Organization: AT&T
- References: <1992Nov17.163521.11497@cis.ohio-state.edu> <1992Nov18.150156.2112@ugle.unit.no> <2938@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:58:54 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <2938@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden) writes:
- > The problems I have with the game are:
- >
- > GB: Large navy, tiny army.
- >
- > Prussia: Lose your army, and you are sunk. Prussia doesn't have
- > the economy to replace an army devastated by surrender
- >
- > Austria: A large army, good leaders, and a healthy economy. I
- > think that the Austrians have to avoid the temptation to over-expand,
- > as this will draw unwanted attention to themselves, especially if
- > France has been recently defeated.
- >
- > Forage: Can't agree with this one, especially when some of the
- > really big French corps forage just like a small Russian one (or
- > better, if they don't move).
-
- Problems? They sound like accurate abstractions of the historical
- situation. England *had* a large navy and a tiny army. Prussia had a
- professional army and weak economy. If Austria had attempted to expand too
- drastically, it *would* have gotten unwanted attention. France's great
- strength was the policy of supplying its field armies by foraging, instead
- of great bloody supply trains.
-
- I don't know the game personally, but it sounds to me as if "remedying"
- these "problems" would succeed in stripping it of historical accuracy.
-
-