[note: much of the data comes from Mike Treasure and his friends, who were
compiling it for a long 1789 variant, as well as from the 1792 variant printed
in the General. I have reduced many values, but there is a major tactical
rating "inflation" for all nations due to the large number of leaders
with tactical ratings of "3". This massive set of leaders is
intended for use with special rules for leader removal and casualties
2.1.4.Austria
AUSTRIA
| Name
| Ratings
| Arrival
| Elimination
| Charles
| 4.4.4.C
| At Start
|
| Charles
| 4.4.5.B
| Special
|
| Charles
| 4.4.6.A
| Special
|
| Latour
| 2.1.3.D
| At Start
| Jan 1805
| Wurmser
| 1.3.2.B
| At Start
| Aug 1797
| Sztaray
| 3.2.2.D
| Aug 1796
| Jan 1805
| Wartensleben
| 2.2.1.D*
| Sep 1796
| Jan 1805
| Alvintzi
| 3.3.2.D
| Oct 1796
| Aug 1809
| Saxe-Coburg
| 2.2.3.B
| Nov 1796
| Mar 1802
| Kray
| 3.3.4.C
| Apr 1797
| Jan 1805
| Bellegard
| 2.2.3.D
| Mar 1798
|
| Ott
| 3.2.2.D*
| Apr 1798
| Jul 1809
| Melas
| 2.3.3.D
| Jul 1799
| Nov 1805
| Luer
| 1.2.3.D
| Mar 1800
| Sep 1803
| John
| 1.1.2.C
| Oct 1800
|
| Kollowrat
| 1.2.3.D
| Oct 1800
|
| Mack
| 1.3.4.A
| Jan 1804
|
| Hiller
| 1.2.2.D
| May 1809
| Jun 1814
| Schwarzenburg
| 2.2.3.C
| Jan 1810
|
| Radetzky
| 4.4.4.D
| Mar 1815
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2.1.5.France
FRANCE
| Name
| Ratings
| Arrival
| Elimination
| Bonaparte
| 5.5.3.C
| At Start
| Special Rules
| Bonaparte
| 5.5.4.B
|
| Special Rules
| Napoleon
| 5.5.6.A
|
| Special Rules
| Moreau
| 4.4.4.C
| At Start
| Special Rules Feb 1804
| Jourdan
| 2.2.3.C
| At Start
|
| Hoche
| 4.5.3.C
| At Start
| Special Rule Sep 1797
| Lefebvre
| 2.3.1.C
| At Start
| Jun 1814
| Bernadotte
| 2.2.2.B
| Jan 1799
| Aug 1810(To Sweden)
| Massena
| 4.4.3.C
| Jan 1799
| Jun 1811
| Joubert
| 2.3.1.C
| Jan 1799
|
| MacDonald
| 2.3.1.D
| May 1799
|
| Desaix
| 5.5.2.B*
| Jun 1800
|
| Davout
| 4.5.2.B
| Jan 1801
|
| Murat
| 2.3.3.B*
| Jan 1801
|
| Ney
| 2.4.1.C
| Jan 1801
|
| Lannes
| 2.5.1.C
| Jan 1801
|
| Soult
| 3.3.3.C
| Jan 1801
|
| Eugene
| 3.3.1.C
| Jan 1806
|
| Victor
| 2.3.1.D
| Jul 1807
|
| Jerome
| 2.2.1.D
| Jan 1808
|
| Suchet
| 4.4.2.D
| Apr 1809
|
| Marmont
| 2.2.2.D
| Jun 1811
|
| St. Cyr
| 3.3.1.D
| Aug 1812
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2.1.6.Great-Britain
GREAT BRITAIN
| Name
| Ratings
| Arrival
| Elimination
| York
| 2.2.2.A
| At Start
| Mar 1809
| Cornwallis
| 3.2.2.B
| At Start
| Feb 1801
| Dundas
| 2.2.2.B
| At Start
| Dec 1805
| C. Stuart
| 3.2.2.C
| At Start
| Apr 1800
| Lake
| 2.2.2.D
| At Start
| Mar 1800
| Nelson
| Admiral
| Jan 1798
| Mar 1809
| Abercromby
| 3.4.2.B
| Jan 1800
| Jan 1804
| Moira
| 2.3.3.B
| Jan 1801
| Jun 1814
| J. Stuart
| 2.3.1.C
| Jan 1805
| Jun 1814
| Wellington
| 5.5.3.B
| Jan 1806
|
| Morre
| 3.4.2.A
| At Start
| Jan 1807
| Beresford
| 3.3.1.B
| Jan 1808
|
| Hill
| 3.3.1.D
| Jan 1811
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2.1.7.Prussia
PRUSSIA
| Name
| Ratings
| Arrival
| Elimination
| Brunswick
| 2.1.3.A
| At Start
| Jan 1807
| Hohenlohe
| 1.2.4.B
| At Start
|
| Mollendorf
| 3.3.2.B
| At Start
| Oct 1802
| Louis Frederick
| 2.4.1.C
| Jan 1798
|
| Lestock
| 3.3.1.C
| Jan 1805
|
| Ruchel
| 2.1.2.C
| Jan 1806
|
| Blucher
| 3.4.5.C
| Jan 1806
|
| Bulow
| 2.2.2.D
| Jan 1813
|
| Yorck
| 3.3.2.D
| Jan 1813
|
| Kleist
| 3.3.1.D
| Jan 1814
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
2.1.8.Russia
RUSSIA
| Name
| Ratings
| Arrival
| Elimination
| Kamenskoi(sr.)
| 1.2.2.B
| At Start
| Jan 1807
| Suvarov
| 4.5.4.B*
| At Start
| Jan 1800
| Buxhowden
| 1.2.3.C
| At Start
| Jan 1811
| Apraxin
| 2.2.2.C
| At Start
| Jan 1808
| I. Saltykov
| 2.3.1.D
| At Start
| Jun 1805
| Gudovich
| 1.3.2.D
| Oct 1796
| Jan 1801
| Rimsky-Korsakov
| 2.2.2.C
| Mar 1797
| Aug 1800
| Kutuzov
| 3.4.4.B
| Jan 1800
| Jan 1813
| Bagration
| 2.4.4.C
| Jan 1800
|
| Alexander
| 1.2.4.A
| Mar 1801
|
| Benningsen
| 2.2.3.C
| Mar 1801
|
| Tsitianov
| 3.3.2.D
| Feb 1802
| Mar 1806
| Michelovich
| 1.2.3.D
| Mar 1806
| Jan 1813
| Barclay
| 3.3.5.C
| Jan 1810
|
| Tormassov
| 1.2.3.D
| Jan 1811
|
| Wittgenstein
| 2.2.4.C
| Jan 1812
|
| Rtishchev
| 2.3.2.D
| Dec 1812
|
| Adm. Tshisagov
| 2.3.2.D
| Dec 1812
|
| Sacken
| 2.2.1.D
| Apr 1814
|
| Vorontzov
| 3.3.3.D
| Apr 1815
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2.1.9.Spain
SPAIN
| Name
| Ratings
| Arrival
| Elimination
| Urrutia
| 2.3.3.C
| At Start
| Apr 1800
| Caro
| 2.2.1.C
| At Start
| Apr 1800
| De La Cuesta
| 1.2.3.A
| Nov 1796
| Aug 1809
| La Romana
| 3.3.2.B
| Apr 1800
| Jan 1811
| Castanos
| 3.3.3.B
| Jan 1805
| Jul 1813
| Blake
| 2.2.4.B
| May 1808
|
| Del Parque
| 2.3.3.C
| Sep 1809
|
| Mendizabal
| 1.2.3.C
| Jan 1811
|
| Friere
| 2.2.2.D
| Apr 1811
|
| Giron
| 2.2.3.D
| Mar 1813
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
2.1.10.Turkey
TURKEY
| Name
| Ratings
| Arrival
| Elimination
| Grand Vizier
| 1.2.4.A
| At Start
| never*
| Ahmed Pasha
| 2.3.2.B
| At Start
| Jan 1801
| Beylerbey Runni
| 1.2.3.C
| At Start
|
| Chapanoclu
| 2.2.2.C
| At Start
|
| Abdurrahman
| 2.3.2.C
| At Start
|
| Hakki
| 3.3.3.C
| At Start
| Sep 1811
| Kushid
| 2.2.2.C
| At Start
|
| Husrev
| 2.3.3.C
| Mar 1801
|
| Byrakdar Pasha
| 2.3.3.B
| Mar 1805
| Nov 1808
| Pechlivan Khan
| 3.4.3.B
| Nov 1806
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
2.2.Special Rules related to Leaders
The Bonaparte "C" leader may be replaced by the Bonaparte
"B" leader after the "C" leader wins a battle against 2 or
more enemy corps. The Bonaparte "B" leader may be replaced by the
napoleon "A" leader after the "B" leader wins a battle
against 3 or more enemy corps. The French Imperial Guard corps may not be used
until the Napoleon "A" leader has replaced the Bonaparte
"B" leader. French money is reduced by $5 until the Napoleon
"A" leader has replace the "B" leader.
The Charles "C" leader may be replaced by the Charles "B"
leader after the "C" leader wins a battle against 2 or more enemy
corps. The Charles "B" leader may be replaced by the Charles
"A" leader after the "B" leader wins a battle against 3 or
more enemy corps.
Hoche died at a young age of a freak illness. Instead of simply eliminating him
from the game in September 1797, consider that he has become a casualty twice
in that month. If he is killed on one of the two casually rolls, he's gone. But
if Hoche is not killed, the number of months of wounding on the two rolls is
cumulative, and then Hoche will return to play. (Option: just eliminate Hoche
in September 1797)
Moreau was considered a rival by Napoleon. Moreau was banished from France in
February 1804. He lived in New Jersey until 1813, when he returned to Europe to
observe the German campaigns from the allied side. He was killed at Dresden by
a cannonball in October. Eliminate Moreau in February 1804 if the Napoleon "A"
leader has become available, or as soon after that as the Napoleon
"A" leader is available. Moreau is returned to play if the Napoleon
"A" leader is removed due to peace condition C.6, until October
1813.
The Grand Vizier is an office, not just one person. If the Grand Vizier is
killed, roll one 6 sided die. The number rolled is the number of complete
months that must elapse before a new Grand Vizier is available.
2.3.Corps Sizes
The following reductions apply from July 1796 until June 1806, after which, the
corps sizes revert to those of the normal 1805 campaign. Except that no
European minor corps is reduced to less than 8i, or less than 2c.
AUSTRIA: Reduce the size of the I-IX corps to 11i/m-1c
FRANCE: Reduce the size of the I-VI corps to 15i/m-2c. The Imperial Guard corps
is reduced to 5g-1c, and is not available until the Napoleon "A"
leader is available. The Imperial Guard may only be committed for a morale
column shift of "1" until July 1806. The III Cavalry, IV Cavalry, and
Artillery Corps are not available until July 1806.
GREAT BRITAIN: Reduce the
size of the I corps to 2g-8i/m. Reduce the size of the II and III corps to
10i/m.
PRUSSIA: Reduce the size of the I-VIII corps to 10i/m-3c. Reduce the size of
the Guard corps to 5g-1c.
RUSSIA: Reduce the size of the I-III corps to 10i/m-1c. Reduce the size of the
Imperial Guard corps to 5g-1c. The Imperial Guard may only be committed for a
morale column shift of "1" until July 1806. The Artillery corps is
not available until July 1806.
SPAIN: Reduce the size of the I corps to 2g-8i/m-1c. Reduce the size of the
II-VIII corps to 10i/m-1c.
TURKEY: Reduce the size of the Nizami-Cedid corps to 8i-2c. Reduce the size of
the I-II Janissary corps to 11i.
EGYPT: Reduce the size of the I-II corps to 8i-3c.
MINORS: Change the size of all European minor infantry corps to 8i-2c.This
applies also to Europeanized" Arab State corps.
2.4.Minor Countries Status and Forces
GEORGIA and IRELAND are minor countries in this variant.
| MINOR
| STATUS
| INF
| CAV
| SHIPS
|
| Baden
| Neutral
| 1
|
|
|
| Corfu
| Aus Conq
|
|
|
|
| Corsica
| GB Conq
|
|
|
|
| Georgia
| Neutral
|
|
|
|
| Hanover
| Neutral
| 7
| 2
|
|
| Ireland
| GB Conq
|
|
|
|
| Malta
| Neutral
|
|
|
|
| Romagna
| Fr Conq
|
|
|
|
| Saxony
| Neutral
| 8
| 2
|
|
| Switzerland
| Neutral
|
|
|
|
| Syria
| Tu FS
| 6
| 12
|
|
| Tuscany
| Fr Conq
|
|
|
|
| Venice
| Aus FS
|
|
|
|
Other minor countries are in the same condition as in the 1805 campaign.
The Kingdom of Two Sicilies is in existence.
2.5.Minor Countries Hulks
For use with the "Advanced Naval Rules" or any other system using
hulks,
the following minor countries have hulks:
| COUNTRY
| HULKS
| AT PORT
| Denmark
| 13
| Copenhagen
| Holland
| 15
| Amsterdam
| Malta
| 2
| Malta
| Naples
| 1
| Palermo
| Portugal
| 5
| Lisbon
| Sweden
| 3
| Karlskrona
| Venetia
| 7
| Venice
| | | | | | | |
In addition, 3 more Venetian hulks appear at Venice in March 1797.
3.Setup
3.1.Starting Major Power Forces
(set up in this order)
3.1.1.AUSTRIA
($25)
In the Ulm area: 21i, 6c, 3 corps, and the Latour leader.
In the Nuremburg area: 5g, 27i, 8c, 4corps, 1 depot, and Charles "C"
leader.
In Tyrol Province: 23i, 2c, 2 corps, 1 depot, and the Wurmser leader.
In Mantua (besieged): 6i.
In Venice: 1i.
In Illyria Province: 3i.
In the Austrian home nation outside Tyrol and Illyria Provinces: 16i, 2c,
2 corps, and 2 depots.
3.1.2.FRANCE
($20)
In the Mantua area (besieging Mantua): 21i, 2c, 2 corps, 1 depot, and the
Bonaparte "C" leader.
Anywhere in Piedmont, Lombardy, Romagna, or Tuscany: 9i, 1c, 1 corps, and 1
depot.
In Toulon: 10m, 13 ships, 1 fleet.
In the Strasbourg area: 32i, 6c, 3 corps, 1 depot, and the Moreau leader.
In the Mainz area: 33i, 6c, 3 corps, 1 depot, and the Jourdan leader.
In the Lorient area: 4i, 1c, 1 corps, and the Hoche leader.
At any of the following port cities: Bordeaux, La Rochelle, Brest,
Saint-Malo, Cherbourg, or Le Havre:
5i, 2 corps, 51 ships, and 3 fleets.
At any cities in the French home nation or Belgium: 20m.
France also sets up the Holland corps with 4i, 1c, and the Holland fleet
with 15 ships in Amsterdam, and 15 hulks in Amsterdam.
3.1.3.GREAT BRITAIN
($30)
1g, 15i, 4c, no more than 2 corps, 2 depots, the York, Cornwallis, Dundas, C.
Stuart, and Lake leaders, 7 fleets, 110 ships, and 30 hulks. The corps
may only be set up in the British home nation (which doesn't include Ireland).
No more than 10i may be set up outside the British home nation.
3.1.4.PRUSSIA
($10) (10 manpower)
5g, 50i, 10c, no more than 4 corps, 2 depots, and the Brunswick, Hohenlohe, and
Mollendorf leaders.
Prussia may garrison and place depots in Minden and Wesel.
3.1.5.RUSSIA
($15)
4g, 70i, 6c, 2 Cossacks, no more than 5 corps, 2 depots, and the Kamenskoi
(sr.), Suvarov, Buxhowden, and I.Saltykov leaders.
At any Russian ports on the Baltic Sea: 1 fleet, 30 ships, and 36 hulks.
At any Russian ports on the Black Sea: 1 fleet, 9 ships, and 3 hulks.
Russia does not control Georgia, which is a neutral minor country.
3.1.6.SPAIN
($10)
1g, 30i, 4c, no more than 3 corps, 2 depots, the Urrutia and Caro leaders, 2
fleets, 39 ships, 39 hulks.
3.1.7.TURKEY
($10)
30i, 7c, any desired corps, 2 depots, the Grand Vizier, Ahmed Pasha, Beylerbey
Runni, Chapanoglu, Abdurrahman, Kushid, and Hakki leaders, 1 fleet, 22 ships, 5
hulks.
All feudal corps start at full strength.
Turkey also sets up the Syrian corps with 6i, 12c.
4.Special Rules
4.1.French Dominance
France is not a dominant power at the start of the game in July 1796. Reduce
French money by $10 until dominant status is gained. French infantry morale is
reduced to 3.0. France continues to pick its spot in the land sequence until
another power gains dominance.
4.2.French Depression
The Terror is over. The Guillotine has been dismantled. The major Vendee
revolts have been mopped up. The worst of the Agricultural disruption is
passed. An oligarchy of the bourgeoisie (the Directory) is in power, bringing
an effort to stabilize the economy in favor of men of property. (In short, this
is NOT the 1792 variant!!!) But France is still suffering from an economic
depression in the wake of the Revolution and all the unpaid debts of the ancien
regime. In addition to the $10 France is missing each quarter for not being
dominant, France also reduces money by $5 until the Napoleon "A"
leader is available (no need to actually place the counter on the map).
4.3.Irish Revolt
The willingness of most of the Irish to support the enemies of England,
especially France and Spain, is primarily represented in the 1796 variant by
treating Ireland as a conquered minor country. But there is also a one time
Irish Revolt in the game. If France is at war with Britain and a French corps
lands in Ireland, the player controlling France rolls one 6 sided die. The
number rolled on the die is the number of rebel militia factors that are
immediately added to the French corps. Alternatively, the French player may
purchase a corps and place it in Ireland, rolling a 6 sided die and placing a
number of rebel militia in the corps equal to the number rolled on the die. If
France and Spain are allied and are both at war with Britain, France may
delegate the right to control the Irish Revolt to Spain, in which case the
revolt my be conducted with a Spanish corps. (Historically, one of many Irish
revolts took place in 1798 and was crushed. The British tried to pacify the
Irish by emancipating the Catholics and by passing the Act of Union in 1798.
But many Irish would have still supported powerful enemies of England in the
hope of someday gaining independence. This is the reason for considering
Ireland as a minor country.)
4.4.Increased Foraging Losses
From July 1796 through June 1801, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, Spain, and
all European (non-Arab State) minors add +2 to all foraging die rolls. From
July 1801 through June 1806, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, Spain, and all
European (non-Arab State) minors add +1 to all foraging die rolls. From July
1806 through June 1816 (game end), all corps forage normally.
4.5.Depot Supply Limits
From July 1796 through June 1801 each supply depot may supply no more than 4
corps.
From July 1801 through June 1806 each supply depot may supply no more than 5
corps.
From July 1806 through June 1816 each supply depot may supply no more than 6
corps.
4.6.Battle Fleet Coordination
During naval combat, "1" is subtracted from a side's combat die roll
for each fleet engaged on the side in excess of 1 fleet. Fleets present in
a stack do not all have to engage, but losses on the side in excess
of the.number of ships in the engaged fleets must be taken from the
unengaged fleets present on the side.
There is no limit to the number that may be subtracted from the combat die
roll, but the combat result is not reduced below the lowest result
possible on the naval combat tables being used. (It was very difficult to
coordinate large fleets effectively for a naval battle before WWI, or even
then. Smaller more compact forces could inflict decisive defeat on larger
numbers of ships sailing in multiple groups. Read about the Battle of Cape St.
Vincent in 1797.)
4.7.Hulks
When forces take possession of a port city containing hulks, the hulks are not
automatically destroyed. The player taking possession of the port has the
option to immediately destroy any hulks present. Thereafter, a player may
destroy hulks present in any controlled port during the naval
reinforcement phase, but a player my not destroy hulks in a port city in
his own controlled minor free states which originally were hulks or ships of
that minor state (those hulks belong to the controlled minor nation and
politics of the times did not allow such destruction). A player may destroy
hulks captured in minor ports, and if hulks are present in a conquered
minor port, the player may repair and man them to make them his own national
ships.
(Note: historically the French captured 2 hulks in Malta and 10 in Venice, all
of which were taken into French navy. Several of these were later captured by
the British, who gave one of them to the Turks.)
4.8.Arab States
The following minors are referred to as Arab States: Syria, Egypt, Cyrenaica,
Tripolitania, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco.
Arab States produce no manpower when conquered by major powers other than
Turkey. (The idea that Christian monarchies in Europe could have filled the
ranks of their armies and the decks of their fleets with hordes of Arab Muslims
during the 1796-1816 period is completely absurd!!! The Muslims bitterly
resisted the efforts of Napoleon to incorporate them into his force in Egypt,
and they eventually forced out the occupying forces of Britain after 1801. Even
"Turkey" actually had no system for employing Arab
manpower in it's own armies, relying on imperial semi-independent governorships
over the Arab States instead.)
If a major power other than Turkey converts a conquered Arab State into a free
state, it automatically begins to "Europeanize" the armed forces of
the Arab State minor along the lines of Western military theory and
training. The Arab State's maximum corps composition is immediately changed to
8i-2c.
Turkey may "Europeanize" the armed forces of a conquered Arab State
when it converts it to a free state, but this is an option, not automatic. If a
controlling major power is in unbesieged occupation of the minor Arab free
state capital for 36 consecutive months with a garrison of at least one factor
of the major power's own regular infantry (yea, it's supposed to be tough to
do), then the morale value of all of that minor Arab free state's infantry,
including garrison infantry, is increased to "2.0" for the duration
of the game. Unlike the "British training" option, this increase in
morale level is not lost if the major power which trained the Arab free state
loses control of it.
(Historically, the forces of Turkish controlled Egypt were trained in Western
techniques after 1801. Mehmet Ali Pasha, who became governor of Egypt in 1805,
sent these forces, under command of his son, Ibrahim Ali, to crush revolts
against the Ottoman Empire in Arabia and Greece.) The first time a major power
other than Turkey moves an Arab State corps to a place outside of Africa,
Palestine, Syria, or the original "Turkey" home nation, it receives a
one time penalty of -1PP. This represents public disapproval of the use of
Muslim auxiliaries against Christian areas of Europe. Each major power other
than Turkey can suffer this penalty once during the game.
4.9.Ottoman Empire
Do not use the "Ottoman Empire" political combination option included
in EiA. The Ottoman Empire was still in existence, although with only nominal
authority in some parts. (There was no such thing as "Turkey" in
1796-1816.)
Whenever a major power other than Turkey declares war on Syria, Palestine,
Egypt, Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, or Tunis (while they are neutral), then Turkey
may declare war on that major power immediately at a cost of only -1PP, before
rolling for control of the minor. Turkey may then add +2 for being at war with
that major power when rolling for control.
Turkey collects "annual tribute" each December levy step from certain
controlled capitals in what was the Ottoman Empire. The Turkey player rolls one
6-sided die for each of the following capitals that he controls (either as free
states or as conquered): Cairo, Damascus, and Tunis. Turkey collects money
equal to the total number rolled on the dice. (Note: this will average only
about $9-10 per year for the Turk when all 3 capitals are controlled. It should
not unbalance the game.)
4.10.Special Militia Forces
4.10.1.British "Constitutional Force"
By law, the British government was required to have 120,000 men enrolled in a
national militia. These men were supposed to be called out to repel an
invasion.
During any land reinforcement step, the Britain player may "stand up the
Constitutional Force". 60m are placed anywhere in the British home nation
(which does not include Ireland in this variant). The Britain player suffers an
immediate -3PP penalty (huge political disaster to actually have to call this
force to arms). While the Constitutional Force is "stood up", only
those militia in excess of 60m may be moved outside of the Britain home nation.
Also, only those militia in excess of 60m may be converted to regular infantry
by "militia conversion".
The Britain player may "stand down the Constitutional Force" during
any land reinforcement step in which there are no enemy forces in the Britain
home nation, and there are 60m in the Britain home nation. The Britain player
removes 60m from inside the Britain home nation. The Britain player immediately
receives a benefit of +2PP.
There is only one Constitutional Force. Thus the Britain player cannot
"stand up" the force if it is already stood up (this is NOT like
"levee en masse"), nor "stand down" the force if it is
already stood down (no
collection of more +PP just for turning in 60m every now and then).
(Note: The law was changed in 1806 to allow recruitment of a percentage of the
Constitutional Force into the regular British army each year. However, I'm not
sure that the British government wasn't required to still maintain 120,000 militia
on the rolls by recruitment of replacement militia. I think this would then
have no net effect on the 60m in game terms. Recruitment of partially trained
militia did help the British maintain their high training levels during the
long Peninsula War.)
4.10.2.Spanish Ordenanza
Spain had an "Ordenanza" similar to the British Constitutional Force,
but smaller, only 30,000 men. Its primarily roll was to defend Spanish ports,
and it remained under arms for much of the 1796-1816 period.
During any land reinforcement step, the Spain player may "stand up the
Ordenanza". The Spain player places 15m anywhere in the Spanish home
nation, and suffers a -1PP penalty. While the Ordenanza is stood up, only
militia in excess of 15m may be moved out of the Spanish home nation, and only
militia in excess of 15m may be converted to regular infantry by the
"militia conversion" option.
During any land reinforcement step in which there are no enemy forces in the
Spanish home nation, and there are at least 15m in the Spanish home nation, the
Spain player may "stand down the Ordenanza", removing 15m from inside
the Spain home nation, and gaining an immediate benefit of +1PP.
There is only one Ordenanza to be stood up or down (as above).
4.10.3.Ottoman Garrisons and Anatolia Militia
Empires in Arms did not take account of the large number of garrisons
throughout the Ottoman Empire.
These were composed of a nucleus of lower grade "provincial
janissaries" and a variety of types of local garrison troops. Selim III
even began a Western style militia to supplement these forces in Anatolia
during his ill fated reign (1789-1806).
"Turkey" may build one factor of militia (use the grey counters) for
each city in the "Turkey" home nation. (Alternatively, players may
agree to let Turkey start with one factor of militia in each city in the Turkey
home nation... that's more historical.) These factors may only be placed in
unbesieged cities, no more than one per city. These factors are immobile, they
may not be placed in corps, nor may they even be moved out of the city to
garrison a depot.
Players may wish to allow Turkey to have two factors of militia in each city of
the Anatolia region to represent the Anatolian militia.
4.11.Accomodations Necessary
For Really Long Games
Because the 1796 theoretically covers 20 years (yea, I know it's ridiculous), I
figured it was necessary to come up with a few rules to reflect the fact that
armies didn't get too massive, and leaders usually
disappeared from nation's roster of commanders after being humiliated in one of
more battles.
4.11.1.Regular Infantry Limits
(optional, of course, but try it out)
There was a limit to how much regular infantry could be produced before the
influx of foreign mercenaries and less patriotically motivated conscripts was
producing poor material. The total number of regular
infantry that may be on the map at any one time for each nation is limited to 5
x map printed manpower from July 1796 through June 1806, and is limited to 7 x
map printed manpower from July 1806 through June 1816. (Players may agree to
limit Britain to starting national manpower of 12 instead of map printed
manpower of 16, which number includes Ireland... Britain always had a very
small army of regulars) Players may build regular infantry in excess of this
number (in anticipation of losses), but when it arrives, those factors which
would exceed the limit are taken as militia instead.
4.11.2.More Maintenance Costs
(again optional, of course, but try this one too)
In addition to the maintenance costs paid for corps, fleet, and depot counters
on the map during the economic phase, the following additional maintenance
costs for factors on the map are assessed at $1 per each:
(1) For each 20 ships or
fraction thereof (not hulks)
(2) for each 20 non-British regular infantry factors or fraction thereof
(3) for each 40 militia or fraction thereof
(4) for each 10 guard or fraction thereof
(5) for each 10 regular cavalry or fraction thereof (not feudals)
(6) for each 10 artillery or fraction thereof
(7) for each 15 British regular infantry or fraction thereof
(Note: I admit this rule would be tough on players, but it would be add lots of
realism.)
4.11.3.Political Durability of Leaders
I have listed as much data as I and the group of players including Mike
Treasure could find out regarding actual natural death, illness, or retirement
due to old age. In many cases, the figures are a guess.
However, this does not entirely account for the disappearance of numerous
leaders who were not killed in combat. Many of them never got another field
command after losing a major battle.
Use one of the following options (or make up one of your own) to remove leaders
who have been disgraced. Under both of these rule offerings, the disgraced
leader is treated as if they are "removed" under peace condition C.6,
and they can be returned to field command at the cost of -PP equal to strategic
rating plus tactical rating. If a nation is ever reduced to no leaders in play,
one "removed" leader may be immediately returned to play at no -PP
cost. If a nation has been reduced to no leaders in play, and
there are no "removed" leaders available to be returned, then the
next arriving reinforcement leader is
immediately placed into play.
For purposes of either of these options, a corps containing 20 or more factors
counts as two corps.
OPTION "A":
Each leader may take a number of political "hits" equal to his
strategic rating. Each time the leader losses a battle while in command of
three or more corps, he suffers a "hit". When the total hits reach
the total of the
leader's strategic rating, the leader is "removed" at the end of the
month in which the last hit was taken. (Players may want to make that the end
of the quarter or year... whatever strikes you as a reasonable period for the
removal... usually this wouldn't take place in the middle of a seasonal
campaign). A leader removed under this procedure may be returned to play by
paying the required political points. But the returned leader may take a number
of new political hits equal only to his half his strategic rating rounded up
before being removed again.
OPTION "B": When a leader in command of two or more
corps losses a battle. There is a chance that he will be removed through
political disgrace. At the conclusion of the lost battle, the leader rolls a
pair of
6-sided dice. It the leader commanded two corps, a roll of "12"
causes the leader to be removed.
If the leader commanded three or four corps a roll of "11" or
"12" causes removal. If the leader commanded five or more corps rolls
of "10", "11", or "12" cause the leader to be
removed. The leader is removed at the end of the month (or quarter, or year,
whatever the players think most reasonable for this rule... the leader would
probably be able to complete the campaign).
4.11.4.Casualties of Leaders not on Map
Many leaders who were already qualified for, and had exercised, independent
field command were killed or wounded at battles where they were in subordinate
command to another army commander. These included leaders such as Lannes,
Desaix, and Bagration. Many of the massive number of leaders listed for the
1796 variant were present at larger battles in subordinate command. In Empires
in Arms, there is often no motivation to expose these leaders to enemy fire by
putting their counter on the map. In order to correct for
this, and to deal with casualties of the many new leaders available, use this
rule:
Whenever there are more corps counters than leader counters present at a battle
which involves more than one corps on the side, consider that any of the
leaders not on the map who are of equal or junior seniority to the commander
might be present at the battle. If a casualty occurs the possible leader
casualty may be any leader whose counter is present at the battle or any leader
of equal or junior seniority to the commander whose counter is not on the map.
(Include those leaders in the random pick to see which leader takes the
casualty)
4.12.Alternative to Dominant Power Morale
(totally optional of course)
For people, like myself, who don't really like the dramatic swings in morale
due to gain and loss of territory, I offer the following option:
Instead of using the dominant powers rules of the normal game, vary infantry
morale of the French, British, British trained minors, and Poles over the
course of the 1796 variant according to the following table:
YEAR FRENCH BRITISH POLES AND
BRITISH TRAINED
1796 3.0
3.5
3.0
1797 3.1
3.6
3.1
1798 3.2
3.7
3.2
1799 3.3
3.8
3.3
1800 3.4
3.9
3.4
1801 3.5
4.0
3.5
1802 3.6
4.1
3.6
1803 3.7
4.2
3.7
1804 3.8
4.3
3.8
1805 3.9
4.4
3.9
1806 4.0
4.5
4.0
1807 3.9
4.5
4.0
1808 3.8
4.5
4.0
1809 3.7
4.5
4.0
1810 3.6
4.5
4.0
1811 3.5
4.5
4.0
1812 3.4
4.5
4.0
1813 3.3
4.5
4.0
1814 3.2
4.5
4.0
1815 3.1
4.5
4.0
1816 3.0
4.5
4.0
Britain still picks it's spot in the naval sequence. France always picks its spot
in the land sequence. Instead of subtracting $10 for France not being dominant,
and $5 for French depression until the Napoleon "A" leader is
available, just subtract $15 from French money until the Napoleon "A"
leader is available.
Rationale: (ok, this needs an explanation)
Poles
Poland had just suffered partition. The ink was still wet on the treaty between
Prussia, Russia, and Austria in 1796. It's hard for me to believe that the
Poles would show sudden enthusiasm for one of their conquerors (as these are
the only powers likely to be able to reform Poland early in the game),
especially not to the extent of acting virtually as a guard corps for one of
them. The Poles probably benefited to some extent from the French tactical
system, although I don't know if that is true. It just seems more reasonable to
let Polish morale recover gradually from the trauma of being partitioned.
British and British trained
infantry Britain entered the 1790s without the dramatic advantage over other
European powers that the 4.5 morale would indicate. In the late 1790's, there
began a gradual change in British tactics to a more flexible system that made
better use of light infantry and exposed the thin well-trained British lines to
fewer casualties, and therefore less morale loss. Britain suffered plenty of
humiliations prior to the Peninsular War, but by then the British system fully
justified the 4.5 morale that EiA gives them.
French
All nations other than the Ottoman Empire had pretty good morale in their
regular formations. A major part of the "morale" value assigned in
EiA might be a matter of exposure of the troops to casualties through the
tactical system used. The French put clouds of skirmishers out to inflict
casualties on exposed enemy formations, while protecting formed French
battalions until the last minute. The French columns depended on speed and mass
to break enemy lines quickly, counting on the faster formation to break the
enemy before long exposure to fire caused the French battalions to break. Combined
with revolutionary and patriotic enthusiasm, a great release of officer talent
due to the removal of aristocratic birth as a qualifier for advancement, and
greater experience, training, and success with the system, the French
"morale" reached a peak in about 1805-1807.
The inclusion of numerous foreign elements in the French corps after 1806
caused a drop in the nationalistic component of morale. Massive casualties and
the need to get large forces in the field against multiple enemies caused
declining levels of training. As Napoleon called up more and more recruits far
in advance of their draft period, even employing 14 year old boys in 1814, the
conscripts showed less and less enthusiasm. Also, France's enemies showed a
significant increase in nationalistic fervor, and they began to emulate the
more flexible French tactics, so the relative advantage of the French in these
areas declined.
I have to admit that this table does not take into account that a game of EiA
may promptly go off in a different direction from history. However, simply
incorporating these "morale" changes via this table might have some
interesting effects.
(1) Prussia, Austria, and Russia will be less motivated to reform an
independent Poland early in the game because of its fantastic morale.
(2) The British and their trained minors will not be so fearsome.
(3) The French will want to fight much more in the middle of the game, which
will produce the kind of casualties which will actually justify the morale drop
incorporated in the table (how's that for circular logic) and which will mirror
the peak of Napoleon's and France's ambition to dominate Europe (Napoleon's
enthusiasm for conquest did decline). As French morale will be changing around
the average of 3.5, instead of just sitting at 4.0, nations may be motivated to
war with France individually, rather than depending only on grand coalitions to
bring down that high 4.0 morale. Also, because France will not be able to
change morale by losing dominance, the ambition of major coalitions to strip
France of every territory will be lessened.
At the least, the option could produce some interesting results, and is
probably worth trying once or twice to see what happens.
5.Miscelaneous Options
These options have nothing specifically to do with the 1796 variant, but I'm
throwing them in because I have your attention, and because they are just food
for thought.
5.1.Special Peace Condition
Add a new special peace condition C.10 in two parts. C.10.a can be picked by a
power to whom Britain surrenders unconditionally: Britain can no longer
subtract victory points from the power that has chosen it. C.10.b can be picked
by Britain against a power which previously picked C.10.a against Britain:
Britain can resume victory point subtraction against the power that earlier
picked C.10.a.
5.2.New Types of Formal Peace
Two new types of formal peace result in a period of enforced peace lasting18
months. In effect, both sides are surrendering to each other in order to gain a
period of enforced peace, and some mutual trade of peace conditions. If using
the official "No Ceding" rule 12.3.9 from the errata, these types of
formal peace allow ceding of territory.
5.2.1.Formal Conditional Peace Without Victory
Two powers may make a formal conditional peace without victory. The two powers
suffer a -2PP penalty. Both powers pick two conditions against the other from
list A. Then both pick one condition against the other from list B. One power
may simultaneously make this type of peace with multiple other major powers,
suffering only one -2PP penalty, and may pick a different set of two conditions
from list A against each enemy.
5.2.2.Formal Unconditional Peace Without Victory
Two powers may make a formal unconditional peace without victory. The two
powers suffer a -5PP penalty. Both powers pick any two conditions from lists B
and C. A player may make this type of peace simultaneously with multiple other
major powers, but suffers a -5PP penalty for each such peace
made. If playing with restrictions on peace between France and Britain, this
peace satisfies the requirements for those restrictions. (Note: there is really
no historical justification for this second type of peace, but I throw it in
for those players who have battered a pair of countries into oblivion but can't
take each other out. In the spirit of duelists, they might only be satisfied by
shooting each other in this manner.)
5.3.Special Restrictions on English Channel Crossing Arrow
Use of the English Channel crossing arrow causes some strange problems for
France and Britain. It was one of the most heavily patrolled waterways of the
period. It should not be necessary to detail a whole battle fleet to prevent a
crossing there. No serious crossing of the Channel in force could really be
contemplated without first clearing all naval opposition from within range of
the Channel and having a covering force for the operation. If using the English
Channel crossing arrow, apply these restrictions:
Corps may not cross the English Channel via the crossing arrow unless a
friendly battle fleet is present and there are no enemy battle fleets in the
English Channel or in port cities (even if blockaded), blockade boxes, or sea
zones adjacent to the English Channel.
5.4.Cavalry Options
WITHDRAWAL: Any all cavalry force (not just cavalry symbol corps) has a
strategic rating of 5 for withdrawal purposes only.
REDUCED COSTS: For those who think cavalry is too expensive, use these costs:
morale 4 cavalry: $12, 2mp
morale 3 cavalry: $9, 2mp
morale 2 cavalry: $6, 2mp
(costs according to the morale level on the major or minor country's corps)
CAVALRY BESEIGED: Whenever a besieged force takes more than one factor of loss
in one supply phase due to foraging inside the city, one of the lost factors
must be cavalry if any is present. (I would eat those horses. Wouldn't you???
Anyway, they die quickly from lack of forage.)
CAVALRY FORAGING LOSSES: Whenever more than three losses are taken by a corps
in a single foraging attempt on a turn in which the corps moved through non-clear
terrain, one of the foraging losses must be cavalry, if any is in the corps.
6.QUESTIONS
However, in the reading, I've few questions
1) Hulks in Kronstadt (for Sweden), do you mean Karlskrona, because Kronstadt
is in Transylvania!!
OOOOoooooppppsss!!! Yes, I do mean Karlskrona. That was the main base for the
Swedish fleet. My brain has been turning to mush as I write this into many
e-mail parts. I have just been having too much trouble sending this as a
word-processed document to various people who have asked for it. All of it will
be out on the wires via e-mail installments by the end of this weekend.
2) Georgia wasn't neutral (in my sources) because in 1783 they allied to Russia
against the Turks, so I think that Georgia was conquered) and annexed in 1801
by Alexander.
That is interesting, but "allied" is the sort of status that a minor
country would have (and some players have systems for doing diplomacy on
minors). My sources indicate that Russia actually invaded Georgia in 1800 to
conquer it. Because the status of Georgia is not so clear, I think it would be
good to treat Georgia as a minor. That way, whoever is in actual possession of
Georgia, can collect the $2. Also, an invasion can force some Cossacks to go
home to Georgia. There are too few minors out in the east to provoke wars
anyway. Since Georgia does not produce manpower, it seems fair to treat it the
same way Corsica is treated, even though Corsica had been a French possession
for a long time before the French Revolution.
3) Why the strength of the first part of the scenario isn't those in the 1792
scenario?
Do you mean corps strengths??? If so, I will explain the corps strengths in a
separate message. Send a
single message asking about the corps strengths if that is what you mean.
4) In the victory points, 480 seems quite easy for Turkey (it is an average of
6 victory points per month)
Yes, the victory point totals have not been play tested. I just felt that I had
to throw out some numbers to get things started. I once played the 1805
campaign for over 10 years. The Turk was one of the most brilliant players I
have ever seen. I fear ever seeing that man in charge of France!! But he never
won a single battle as the Turk (he stood in for the Spain player and beat the
French twice.)
I had in mind that players might want to make the Turk situation even worse by
treating the janissaries as militia, as historically, they were pathetic by
this period, and were more a danger to the Sultan than to his enemies. Selim III was trying to phase out the janissaries and replace them
with Western style troops, the Nizami-Cedid, and the effort cost him his life.
I have not actually written a rule like that, as players probably want some
play balance, even if the quality of the janissaries in EiA is really a
fantasy. The victory points will need to be adjusted, either way, after
play test.
5) Venetia was an Austrian free state. It is surprising, because in 1792 and
1805 Venetia was an Austrian conquered (what happen around 1796? I don't know very
much about Italian history around 1800, maybe you can answer me)
This was a difficult question. Venice was pretty much conquered by Austria, in
the sense that Austria had stripped Venice of Illyria, and apparently did not
permit Venice a significant self-defense force. I don't
really know if Venice was providing Austria with money and manpower. During
1796/97, Napoleon sent forces to intimidate the Venitian government, which
seemed to be independent, but supportive of the
Austrians. He effectively conquered Venice during this period. I only threw
into Venice a single factor of Austrian infantry, even though this is not
strictly historical, simply to force the French to besiege Venice to get it
(since the French could move first and simply drop a factor into Venice...not
sure I wanted to force the Austrians to besiege the French in Venice...but you
can change this by pushing the Austrian factor back to Illyria if you think
that's more correct).
The terms of the "Peace of Campo Formio" in 1797 allowed Austria to
"conquer" Venice, which seems to imply that Venice was a free state
beforehand.
In the final analysis, I wanted to make sure that Austria could not destroy or
use the Venetian hulks as Austrian ships (which my hulk rules would allow if
Venice was Austrian conquered) because these ships were actually captured and
taken into French service.
Your ideas of leader elimination is quite interesting (damn, the Spanish
leadership is, as always, pathetic!!)