another future request

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

another future request

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> another future request

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

another future request - 1/11/2008 2:48:36 AM

dodod

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline

Dominance.

I think it would be vital to change dominance in this game. not only for this campaign, but to more easily play a prolonged campaign.

France should be able to be knocked off, and others should be able to go up.

This may or may not require a lot of programming. most of it will be under the conditions of losing or gaining dominance. Otherwise, the morale and movement would be easy...just change the number.

I think this allows for a realistic game, and gives others the ability to strive for more...more strategy. This way it won't be as easy for france to build back up despite being beaten repeatedly.

I realize this won't be done soon, but very important.

Post #: 1

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 5:29:10 AM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

And turning those ceded home provinces into unceded home provinces belonging to the dominant power... is one tasty bonus, especially for Russia.

(in reply to dodod)

Post #: 2

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 10:05:45 AM

AndrewV

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline

I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying).

France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further.

A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 3

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 10:17:59 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

Ive seen it happen with Russia once and strangely enough with Turkey once but i totally agree there is more important things like Combined movement, AI and TCP/IP wich I would prefere being worked at.

(in reply to AndrewV)

Post #: 4

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 11:12:54 AM

baboune

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline

Well it is ridiculously easy to dominate the world with the current AI... Which means easy Dominance.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 5

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 12:26:41 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

I've seen it / done it

several times. Twice as RU and once where FR and another one where GB lost dominance. I might have seen Austria go dominant, but it's been a while (so I don't remember exactly).

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewV

I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying).

France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further.

A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.

< Message edited by iamspamus -- 1/11/2008 6:20:59 PM >

(in reply to AndrewV)

Post #: 6

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 4:25:34 PM

dodod

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline

I think the more important thing, which did happen often, is france came OUT of dominance...game became more equal.

(in reply to dodod)

Post #: 7

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 7:00:11 PM

megalomania2003

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

France not being dominant changes the game, but does not make it more equal.

In my F2F games I have never seen a country gain dominance. It is to easy to block (declaration of war) and gives so big an advantege that the other players should never let it happen - For that reason I do not see this as an important rule

(in reply to dodod)

Post #: 8

RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 7:42:06 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

I also agree that ALTERNATIVE DOMINANT POWERS should be considered a very low priority addition for the future.

It has never been core to the EiA Game, and EIANW seems to be all about the NAPOLEONIC WARS (1805-1815) where France is the dominant force in history...

(in reply to megalomania2003)

Post #: 9

RE: another future request - 1/12/2008 2:50:15 PM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario.

I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to AresMars)

Post #: 10

RE: another future request - 1/13/2008 4:37:18 AM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

SUVAROV Rocks!!! He's my favorite leader of the "Napoleonic" wars.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario.

I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 11