Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 4/4/2002 12:57:55 AM   
sctrac

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
[B]Great input! How much unit control would be good during combat? What kinds of combat interfaces would you look for? Give me some game examples of where there is a good combat interface? Bad examples? [/B][/QUOTE]

Ahhh, so much to say but so little time!

First, a very brief introduction - as this is my first time posting. I have been wargaming for over 20 years and I am huge fan of this era. I am currently Admin for an EiA campaign and play miniatures (I have five corps of 15mm Russians based upon the Empire ruleset) every chance I get - which unfortunately isn't much these days.... Anyway on to the business at hand.

First of all, Thank You - this game has me more excited than I have been for a long time (over any game). The potential is overwhelming.

I agree with the majority of posts that nix the Tactical combat feature - while I enjoy this aspect, there are other games that I would rather play outside of the Strategic realm. It would just bog this game down.

As an older gamer who has to steal some time away for myself, the PBEM feature is a MUST for me. The EiA campaign that I am involved with has seven players located across the US in every time zone with one member in Turkey right now (Our French player, no doubt shoring up his diplomatic standings), so it isn't feasable to have everyone online simultaneously.

Two aspects of the Napoleonic period that adds alot of color and depth to the Wargames table is leadership and morale. Maybe you have the smallest units in the game be Divisions for infantry, and Brigades for cavalry. These units cannot operate in a combat role by themselves (probably only in Corps, other than garrisons and March units), but allow for experience and losses to be applied during campaigns applied as battles are fought. Napoleon's Old Guard were hand picked from experienced veterans; so maybe within the divisions, the regiments are assigned experience points and you are given the ability to bolster your Guard and Grenadier regiments with these veterans up to a national maximum. A system similar to reinforcement placement Talonsoft's Operational Art of War comes to mind (i.e. I am building a Curassier Brigade this turn as well as three Infantry Divisions, I am shifting the Kexholm Regt. in my 2nd Grenadier Corps, etc.).

Aspects of morale could be affected by operational events - the Austrians in 1805 were demoralized when Napoleon cut off their supply line then offered to do battle with them (Ulm, I believe it was with Mack in Command).

Leaders should gain Strategic and Tactical experience the more that they fight - maybe have a base rating, that improves with victories, etc. A good boardgame model for this is Victory Games's "The Civil War". Death of Leaders should also be a real possibility - this had a profound effect on Napoleon's chain of command throughout the period (We still mourn the loss of Lannes). Maybe assign attributes to leaders at the divisional level (based upon a national average with a random +/- ) that would allow for a pool of replacements to be brought up through the ranks.

PLEASE allow for the naming of units - this little feature (similar to the two Imperialism games) could go a long way to adding some of the pageantry of the period to this game.

Fog of War. This is something that EiA does not handle well. The Russians of the period had vast amounts of light cavalry in the Cossacks that made their Operational intellegence gathering superior to most other nations, however the French had a very professional intelligence organization that made them very effective at the outset of any campaign in gathering Strategic information, Maps, troop dispositions, etc.

Politics and Nation Building. Once again an EiA shortcoming. Many, if not all, of the wars fought in this period had their roots in one simple fact: Napoleon was not "royalty". The Austrian Monarchy stayed adament throughout the period in bringing about his downfall for this reason (among others, including the loss of their Italian holdings). Thus Austria, Russia, Prussia, and England formed much of their foreign policy for this reason - they didn't want to see the revolution spread. Thus alliances were formed to combat this "evil". Maybe a system similar to Europa Universalis could be a simple way to allow flexibilty given to the players in how they want to play the Strategic aspects of their nation. Maybe Austria wants to become THE naval power in the Med...

Combat control. If the PBEM is going to function, I am assuming that the computer will have to resolve combats and give the results at the close of one's turn. I personally agree (somewhat)with an earlier posting I read about issuing orders then waiting for the results. Maybe give your Army leader his orders (i.e. Maneuver to Strasbourgh and Defend) as well as an aggressiveness rating (I am assigning High Aggresiveness to this order until Strasbourgh is reached then it shifts to low), then offer the opportunity for the players to create way points for each corps. Once everyone has placed their orders, then the computer will take into account the following factors:

Fog of War
Leader ratings (modified by operational orders and aggressiveness orders)
Initiative
Operational intelligence ability based upon light cavalry composition.
Army Morale.
Enemy created events (Ouch! my supply depot has just been overrun)
Random events (Luck).

Any combats would be resolved and battle reports would be issued. A good idea with very bad execution was a game put out by 360 Games based upon "Desert Storm" - I don't remember the name but it was terrible (maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance). It used the Harpoon engine for land combat.

One shortcoming in turn based play the real time games (Yuck) have is the fact that armies don't sit and wait for you to move before they do anything. Many battles of the period just "happened" because advance guards ran into each other, and the commanders present just reinforced the skirmish until it became a full scale battle (Gettysburg is a good example - a little later in the century, but hey).

Well, enough. Sorry for the "lengthy" posting. I'm not sure any of this is helpful, it sure feels good to get my ideas off my chest. I certainly would welcome any opinions based upon the above thoughts.

Thanks again.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 31
- 4/4/2002 4:16:37 AM   
martinmb

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/3/2002
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
To the wargamers of Matrix Games,

This is my first posting, and hopefully not my last. I have just finished reading all of the comments made on this "thread". I have found them to be amusing as well as informative. I have been wargaming since the mid 70's and although I am not great, I feel that I have a right to throw my comments into the arena for all to see and judge. One of the biggest concerns seems to be the level on which units fight. Strategic or Tactical? This particular game, which I personally am waiting for with great anticipation, was originally designed as a strategic level game. Yes, there are problems with some of the mechanics of the game but we all have invented our own "house rules". We have also omitted some rules, and all of us have in some way shape or form have interrupted the rules differently than someone else. This is just human nature.
My suggestions for this EiA style game are as follows;

1) Keep the unit level fighting to the strategic level only. This is because imho if you go any smaller you will take forever to fight the "Grande Campaign".

2) Allow each country only the original counter mix with some added suggestions, for example: extra supply depots are 50% more expensive.

3) The suggestion made by sctrac - " Leaders should gain Strategic and Tactical experience the more they fight - … good example is Victory Games "The Civil War" I had to reread those rules and I would agree with him. However! Certain people, like Napoleon, Wellington should not die. That does not mean that they were not wounded and had to recover for 8 months.

This brings me to my final insight. Most of us started wargaming to see if we could do better that the real historical figures. We all wanted to have the ability to see if we could do better, or at least something different. My personal biggest pet peeve is for example, What if Napoleon did manage to invade England? Will this possibility still be available to us if we plan correctly for it?

On a personal note I believe that the style of board gaming that I grew-up with would and had to change in order to merge with this new computer world. Well done and keep up the great work. If there is anything I can do to assist you please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you all for allowing me to express my views and opinions on this subject. I hope to hear from anyone else and maybe join in on some of the up coming games.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 32
Thank you all - 4/4/2002 8:47:25 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
These are great suggestions! I can see combat being somewhat abbreviated for PBEM because of the length of the game. One round of combat shouldn't take this long and it would. We may have to re-think our level of tactical control or at least "option" it.

Thank you all again!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 33
Multi-player - 4/23/2002 4:21:11 AM   
ABP

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/28/2002
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Hi,

I don't recall if you have answered this, but are you going to include "hot seat" multi player gaming?

ABP

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 34
Hot Seat Multiplayer - 4/23/2002 7:07:40 AM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Forgive my ignorance but tell me about "Hot Seat" Mulitplayer gaming?

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 35
"Hot Seat" Mulitplayer gaming - 4/25/2002 12:06:27 AM   
ABP

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/28/2002
From: Denmark
Status: offline
The concept is that several players take turn to use the same computer to play the game. When one player is performing his turn he can only see his own information. This could be the map with fog of war applied, his own troop composition etc. The information could be protected with a password that would have to be entered to start each countries turn.
The concept could maybe be combined with other remote players. For example could two players on one computer play with 5 others via internet or e-mail.

ABP

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 36
stay focused! - 4/29/2002 5:06:05 PM   
pmiranda

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 4/29/2002
From: Lausanne, Switzerland
Status: offline
In my opinion, you really need to stay focused on strategy and keep in mind that most of us are interested in playing this game multiplayer via email.
Europa Universalis is an excellent source of inspiration. Too bad it's not turn-based...

This has the potential of being a wonderful game!
Good luck!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 37
- 4/29/2002 9:24:59 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Good advice!

I am realizing that PBEM is much bigger in this game than IP play. Alot of credit goes to Matrix for making me realize this early on. Even though I was skeptical at first, you guys have helped confirm this!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 38
PBEM or IP Play - 4/30/2002 10:11:49 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
PBEM play, may be great, but there is nothing, IMO, that replaces the satisfaction of getting to make your next turn with only a short wait by using TCP/IP play. A large part of a game can be accomplished in an afternoon this way.

With PBEM, I wonder about the games ability to be exciting during the opening moves when nothing is going on.

One not so nice aspect of PBEM is waiting for a turn to be sent to you. Then there is the person who just "disappears", or has a family emergency a week after you've started. This can be especially disconcerting if you have multiple PBEM games going on at the same time. By the time that your opponent sends his next turn, it may be real difficult to remember what is going on in the game.

I'm for both. :)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 39
PBEM benefits + historical flavor - 4/30/2002 10:55:43 PM   
pmiranda

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 4/29/2002
From: Lausanne, Switzerland
Status: offline
PBEM can be admittedly slow, but I think most wargamers enjoy the fact that they can just play a few minutes here and there without the need for 7 players to be *simultaneously* online, which is next to impossible (and which can be an even greater problem considering timezone differences).
Besides, once you're online, if one player quits, then you are in trouble. In addition, most people cannot afford to stay online for hours and prefer to play less time but more frequently. In this case, PBEM is best suited. Of course, game mechanics should be suited to PBEM, meaning the sequence of play should try to minimize file swaps.

I'd also like to mention that I'd appreciate as much historical flavor as possible. I think random events "à la Europa Universalis" could be great. Specific leader personalities would be great too.
Playing a "standard" game where all units have the same name, all armies have the same tactics, etc. makes it dull.
A boardgame you might want to take a look at is "Grand Siecle", from "Azure Wish Editions". I think it has achieved the right balance between strategy and tactics and provides lots of "historical flavor".

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 40
- 5/1/2002 5:48:55 AM   
strategy

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/20/2000
Status: offline
Do random events really contribute to game flavor? I'd rather favor gameplay that "directs" you in a historic direction in order to achieve success. A measure of success would be if you can manage to make the player choose to engage in a Russian campaign even though deeply committed elsewhere, simply because the game conditions dictate it, rather than simply because of artificial game victory conditions or random events.

A good example of a "large" strategy game where PBeM functions extremely well is Stars!

_____________________________

Michael Akinde / Strategy
Imperium - Rise of Rome (http://www.fenrir.dk/imperium/)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 41
Re: stay focused! - 5/2/2002 10:03:13 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pmiranda
[B]In my opinion, you really need to stay focused on strategy and keep in mind that most of us are interested in playing this game multiplayer via email.
Europa Universalis is an excellent source of inspiration. Too bad it's not turn-based...

This has the potential of being a wonderful game!
Good luck! [/B][/QUOTE]

hehe...personally I thank God it's(Europa Universalis) not turn based.

I hope that no matter the direction you take for the games combat model, that it reflects something historical in its flavor so that it doesn't become, side A has 30 infantry and 10 cavalry, sibe B has 30 infantry and 20 cavalry, so side B wins...

Looks to be a fun game...

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 42
Re: PBEM or IP Play - 5/2/2002 10:06:29 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu
[B]PBEM play, may be great, but there is nothing, IMO, that replaces the satisfaction of getting to make your next turn with only a short wait by using TCP/IP play. A large part of a game can be accomplished in an afternoon this way.

With PBEM, I wonder about the games ability to be exciting during the opening moves when nothing is going on.

One not so nice aspect of PBEM is waiting for a turn to be sent to you. Then there is the person who just "disappears", or has a family emergency a week after you've started. This can be especially disconcerting if you have multiple PBEM games going on at the same time. By the time that your opponent sends his next turn, it may be real difficult to remember what is going on in the game.

I'm for both. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Well said!

I am for both as well....PBEM is nice but if I am given the choice, I'll take a live session where I sit and wait 40 minutes for someone to complete their turn as opposed to waiting 2 days with PBEM play =)

Reiryc

_____________________________


(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 43
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.188