Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What would you like to see in this game?

 
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 >> What would you like to see in this game? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What would you like to see in this game? - 9/26/2002 1:02:33 PM   
JParton

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/24/2002
Status: offline 		I was curious what everyone in the forum would like to see in the PC version of EiA.

I would like to see;

The option to remove simultaneous movement server-side in multiplayer mode, so if admins and players wish to run a standard multiplayer EiA game they may do so.

The ability to choose between and intermingle EiA and EiH options. For example, being able to choose the EiH naval combat rules/charts as well as choose the original EiA land combat charts for the same scenario/campaign.

Client/server multiplayer mode where people can run their own 24/7 **password protected** server. That way players from all around the world could log on and send their orders in without necessarily requiring anyone else to be on the server. All they would need to do is log on to the server IP address.

A multiplayer screen which stores various IP game addresses, so people could play more than one multiplayer game without having to have all the IP addresses written down somewhere else. I'm thinking of something akin to the Half-Life multiplayer screen, where game servers are listed and can be added to the list. All the player has to do to join in is double click the server name and provide a password if needed.

The ability to distinguish between corps inside cities and corps in the outlying territory. Maybe a color change in the base of the counter or something.

A reference index on the CD which contains all the charts, OOBs,setups and a printable rules set (all maybe on a PDF file?). Players could print them all out and refer to them while playing if they wish, without having to click an in-game "help" file or something.

Finally, a way to stack a ton of counters without it looking like the Sears Tower in a territory lol

Thanks,

Jerry
Post #: 1
Great idea. - 9/30/2002 5:24:24 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Well, I for one like the simlutaneous movement plans and I would like them to stay --period. It is the far superior way to wargame, IMO. Much more realistic too than turn-based movement. :)

1. Modability. (Is that a word?) I would like to be able to mod the units, map, and different screens if I wanted to have it look differently. (Sound too.)

2. Versatility. (I know that one is a word!) It is synonymous with replayability. I look at Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin and I am simply in awe over the versatility that the player recieves. This game deserves the same treatment.

3. Music. Maybe some nice march music in the background that isn't too repetitive depending on what side you play. You know, if you play the French you should be able to hear a range of different French marches. Play the Prussians and maybe some Prussian marches, et... Also having the ability to hear a mix of all nationalities would be nice too.

Thanks JParton for asking. :)

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 2
Basic multiplay problems - 9/30/2002 5:51:02 AM   
Uncle Toby

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 6/24/2002
Status: offline 		I game regularly on a LAN with a group of longtime friends and one of the things I have observed a lot is the problem of player dynamics in multiplayer games. A lot of games with good points about them are ruined because they fail to allow a range of talents to be employed in play. No one wants to play a game where they get beaten consistently and no one wants to feel they have to handicap one of the players to have a shot. Team play is the easiest solution but obviously not the only one.

Before we got a LAN our group used to meet to play EiA among other games and we had the usual multiplay problems. Generally one of the two or three strongest players would start to win then everyone would try to pull them down, the result was a popularity contest between the leading players. This was not as bad as most multiplayer games but there is plenty of room for improvement. One thing would be to expand the different talents required for victory. In our group we are all very good players but we are good at different things. Some of us excel at one game, some at another, an ideal game would allow each of us to bring his own strengths to bear.

One peculiar modification we made to EiA which might be of interest, I don’t know if anyone else has done it. We had a game where too many player showed up so we devised some rules for two players to play England, one as the government and one as the opposition, If England’s status dropped too low they would hold an election and might switch players. This worked very well and was most enjoyable.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 3
- 9/30/2002 1:27:28 PM   
JParton

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/24/2002
Status: offline 		A response! :)

But seriously, if you look at my original post, I said that the "option" to turn simultaneous movement off (only in multiplayer mode mind you) would be nice. That way, if a group wants to play EiA as it was originally created they would be able to do so. Plus, those people that would prefer a faster simultaneous game could choose that as well.

Im not quite sure about Tony's post though, saying-

"Generally one of the two or three strongest players would start to win then everyone would try to pull them down, the result was a popularity contest between the leading players."

Isn't that how EiA is played? What I mean is, if nobody formed alliances to knock the strongest player(s) down a bit on the PSD then there would be no chance for anyone else to win!
For example, think of when you are playing France, and PR and AU don't form an alliance early on. All those chances to get the rotation going because they didn't ally against you hehehe. And since the game is won on the Political Status Display rather than the map itself, it opens up the game to the one thing which is lacking in many other games- diplomacy. So, IMO who cares if the player is popular, as long as he can provide me means to boost myself up on the PSD (with minimal consequences hahah) I'm all for it. :D

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 4
Vote for me - 9/30/2002 7:17:50 PM   
Uncle Toby

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 6/24/2002
Status: offline 		I don’t mean the three strongest countries, I mean the three players who are best at advanced planning and diplomacy no matter what country they are playing. In our games I won three of the five times we played, as England, Prussia and Turkey. I won mainly because I was better at diplomacy than my main rival and better at planning than the others. I only lost because everyone didn’t want me to always win. The player who was actually best at planning (and generally played France) only won once, when two of the other players got into a snit and wouldn’t cooperate over anything.

The status chart is a useful buffer and stops EiA from being anyone’s game right up to the end, like so many multiplayer games, but it is not a complete solution. We would, of course, try to ramp our points for the endgame (and throw a monkey-wrench in our opponent’s ramp) but with everyone taking the same measures it still always comes down to can you convince someone to let you win rather than the other guy given that he has to choose one of you.

This goes to the heart of why people play competitive games. They want a dramatic struggle and a contest of skill. It’s not very satisfying for the mindset of most strategy gamers to play a game for hours then have the outcome basically determined by a vote.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 5
Historical Victory Conditions - 10/1/2002 2:44:48 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		Historical based victory conditions that are tailored for each country would help.

If a player could choose from a list of historically based victory conditions prior to the start of the game, that would make it that much more difficult to determine what another country's real goals are.

This in turn would help mitigate the "bucket of crabs" syndrome Uncle Toby is referring to.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 6
Bonus points - 10/1/2002 6:01:11 AM   
Uncle Toby

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 6/24/2002
Status: offline 		Secret victory conditions are a good idea but there would have to be a wide variety or the other players would be able to guess who had fulfilled their requirement. Presumably if more than one player got his secret condition the one with the most points would win and you’re back to square one

If there were a wide variety of conditions for ‘bonus’ points and a player were allowed to secretly ‘bet’ both that he would do something and another player would not do something this could make for more interesting play. Secret agendas would allow for bluffing and feints and no one would have any idea who won till the game was over.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 7
- 10/2/2002 1:23:27 AM   
Boralinoi

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 10/2/2002
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline 		Things I would love to see.

Personally, I think that if one wishes to preserve the game as it was originally designed, it is imperative that you allow for in-sequence movement rather than simultaneous movement. I know that this would be a bit of a bore for online games and maybe a nightmare for PBeM games, since each turn of the game could convceivably take weeks whilst waiting for Austria to finish her land movement phase, but by requiring simultaneous movement, you destroy one of the huge advantages of being a Dominant Power.

As a frequent player of France, I am used to being ganged up on. It's a part of the game. Every time I have played France I end up fighting a two or more front war at some point in the game. Without the ability to assess the situation on the map and move according, or to take that deadly 'move last then first' option, I would have been severly smashed on many an occasion when I was, through use of these tactics, able to salvage my army and even come away with a few underdog victories.

Take away my ability to modify my strategy with the intelligence I get from seeing where my opponent moves first, and suddenly things look a lot more grim for Le Emperor.

I LOVE the idea of a dedicated game server where people could log in and submit their turns or get updates. In fact, one of the features that I've always thought I would want to include if I were to write an EiA computer game would be something just like that. Enforce a schedule where each player has to have their next phase in by a particular time on a particular day. If that player is unable to do so, the server AI submits their turn for them so that the game can procede on schedule. The server owner would have the right to establish whatever schedule they desire (1 hour per phase to 1 week per phase) but be unable to change it once the game has started (without re-starting the game with new players) so as to not be able to exploit it.

Anyway, that's enough for now, people tend not to read messages that are too long.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 8
simultaneous movement - 10/3/2002 10:31:01 AM   
Meeker

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline 		To whom it may concern,
> I was absolutely thrilled when I heard about the computer version of
Empires in Arms. I would like to throw my two cents in if you would be so
kind.
> I have played over 30 games of EiA and I am currently in three on-line
games. I heard on the news group that naval and land movement would be
simultaneous. I feel this would ruin a big part of the game. It would also
alter the way major powers are played and those of us who play this game a
lot like this system. That is why it is an addiction for many. If the moves
were to be simultaneous I would hope that it would be an option to be taken
in or out of the game.
> Secondly, I have been playing in many games with Sweden as an eighth
power. I do hope you will look at this as an option to put into the game. It
has been play tested and many people really enjoy playing that country.
> Finally, if you need playtesters, I know several in my group would love to
help out.
> Thank you again for bring a new light to the world of Empires in Arms
lovers.
> Ben Peterson

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 9
- 10/3/2002 7:00:38 PM   
Repo Man

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 9/17/2000
From: NY
Status: offline 		The traditional sequential moves would only work for face-to-face, hotseat, or when players are logged on to a LAN or server simultaneously. I those people who cannot make a set time to play, you are looking at a system whereby players input their turn once per day. If turns are sequential, a single turn would take a full week at a minimum. You do the math to figure out how long the 1805 grand campaign would take.

Having sequential moves as an option would be nice, but simultaneous moves will probably be needed to make the game viable on the PC.

However, since Matrix has already stated there will be greater tactical decisions, that means there will probably be some sort of player input during combat. If so, then there is already the assumption of LAN/Host Server play, and I see no practical reason why sequential moves cannot be retained.

_____________________________

Repo Man

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 10
- 10/3/2002 10:45:23 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline 		I would like too see another way to avoid stack wars.

My idea is, that a land sector can max support 4 corps, unless you got a leader, who can control 5 or 6 corps, because it means he manages to bring in supplies for those extra corps and lets him make use of his high score.

This way, with or without a leader, can you have armies of 4 corps, which means a country like Prussia, could have with a minor nation 3 Armies of 4 corps each, meaning he could use 1 Army to guard Vs poland, 2 armies vs France.

France would off course have some more, as would russia, but it evens out, if you look at how powerful some of those armies would be, like Russia, if you split it evenly, then will most Armies consist of 3 Inf corps and 1 Cav corps (later on at least) 30I/3C
while Prussia would have 3 PRU Corps and 1 Sax Corps for 35I/11C, this means the Prussia armies would have the most best cavalry in europa and mean its more powerful then before, but russia on the other hand have like 6 or 7 armies of 4 corps, unlike Prussia.

While this might seem strange to some, then consider that it will also mean, that in a war, even if you loss badly, then will it be just 1 army that is gone, instead of your entire army as normal, unless you have reinforced more into battle, which shall still be possible.

As for leaders, if a army is without one, then can there still be 4 corps, if a leader is 122, then you can still have 4 corps, it first changes if your leader is 125, last number means you got some people good at organising, so you can actually have 5 corps and napoleon as 556 can then have 6 corps, thats the real changes, but with those leaders in EIH, then did i find this idea to be good and possible.

Depots can then supply unlimited, otherwise will this idea give a few more problems :)

Would really like to know, what people think about this idea, we are going to play with it soon and have tested it in some battles and it seems a very good way to avoid stack wars and i hope it will be included as an option in the computer game :)

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 11
Atavisim - 10/4/2002 5:23:33 AM   
Uncle Toby

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 6/24/2002
Status: offline 		I think the idea behind the corps limit is good but why keep the old supply system at all. It’s a paper-game relic. The computer could calculate much better attrition and supply and dispose of the rote-work of depots.

I think there is a major split between people like me who want to have a computer game which is somewhat like EiA and people who want EiA just the way it is on paper. I think to bind yourself to the paper games limitations in the name of continuity is very shortsighted. I suppose it depends how much confidence you have that the programmers could make a better game. No way to tell.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 12
Progress - 10/4/2002 7:50:18 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		I think a combination of multiple (and extensive) players experience with EiA, a new medium of play, and great ideas from other games can contribute to this product being much more than the original EiA.

Taking into account these advantages and improving the overall quality of the gaming model without sacrificing the original's flavor is the best approach.

We just need to be cautious about stubbornly retaining every aspect of EiA "as is" and lose possible improvements that would make it a better game.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 13
- 10/4/2002 5:51:24 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline 		I came with a suggestion, which could be an option, nothing more then that :)

But i want the option to be there, that i could run a game, just like the board game, because it is EIA after all :)

Still i would also like more options, EIH is a very good start, as it looks like great fun

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 14
- 10/5/2002 4:04:44 PM   
JParton

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/24/2002
Status: offline 		Hi,

To respond (sorry, it's long lol)-

"The traditional sequential moves would only work for face-to-face, hotseat, or when players are logged on to a LAN or server simultaneously. I those people who cannot make a set time to play, you are looking at a system whereby players input their turn once per day. If turns are sequential, a single turn would take a full week at a minimum. You do the math to figure out how long the 1805 grand campaign would take."

**Why would simultaneous movement be any faster? If anything it would require either *everyone* to be on line at the exact same time, or the game would be an an impasse until everyone sent their orders in. At least with sequencial moves (and a 24/7 server) players could send their orders in without anyone else having to be on-line. The server can handle the combats all by itself, and if anyone is curious to see how the game is progressing they can log in and see at any time- which would be a great boon for players in different time zones. Why would a single turn take a full week minimum if anyone could log on at any time? I agree that the players would have to wait for each player to move in sequence, but there's nothing preventing all 7 turns to be processed in a single day on a dedicated server-except the player themselves. It isn't much different then waiting for everyone to send their turns in all at once. One slow player could screw the game up regardless of it is multiplayer or sequential. Actually, now that I think about it a slow player actually hurts more people in a simultaneous game turn, because it affects everyone else, where in a sequencial game the only ones affected are those who have to move after the slow player.

The big delay in current PBEM games isn't neccessarily the time it takes to post a turn, but rather the time it takes to keep track of everyone else's moves before deciding on your own, then sorting combat. If a dedicated server is running, each player wouldn't have to keep as close an eye on everyone else's turn. They could just log on to the server and bam, it updates the map for you automatically. All one would need is a combat choice generator (or allow each player to choose a defense for each stack when they end the turn) and the computer can handle everything else by itself. What normally would take 1-3 days in a PBEM game is reduced to a few minutes with the PC.**


"My idea is, that a land sector can max support 4 corps, unless you got a leader, who can control 5 or 6 corps, because it means he manages to bring in supplies for those extra corps and lets him make use of his high score. "

**Dave- Just curious- I was wondering why you propose this? Is it to prevent monster stacking, to keep the board a bit tidier or some other reason?

If it was to clean the board up, I was thinking of having a colored number show on the base of the pieces, showing how many corps are in the stack. Maybe make the base a bit taller and black, and show the corps in white lettering as a constrast. That way no gigantic piles of army men in a territory, just a single Infantry or Cavalry for each nation. If there are leaders in the stack, they could be shown just by moving the mouse over the piece in question.**

"I think there is a major split between people like me who want to have a computer game which is somewhat like EiA and people who want EiA just the way it is on paper."

**Toby I 100% agree with you. My thoughts are, if Matrix is going to market this as essentially "EiA the PC game," then it has a obligation to develop it as such. If they want to create a Napoleonic game "loosely based on EiA," it opens up a whole new realm. However, if it strays too far off the path it will just go down as another "Squad Leader- "a PC game which had nothing in common at all with the original, just an average PC game with a purchased, well known registered trademark to sell it.

My gut feeling on this is that if Matrix wants flexability in adapting EiA rules and semantics in their game, then they should name the game something else and give copyright credit to ADG in the rulebook for anything they use in the game which was influenced by EiA. **

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 15
- 10/5/2002 7:04:46 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline 		my idea of limiting corps per land sector, is actually to avoid stack war and to simulate real live more, as i have been looking at info about napoleon times.

France like all other nations, never had all their corps in one place, they where more spread out, but why would you want them spread out, when you can have them all in 1 place, unless there is a rule saying you cant have more then 4 in a sector, unless your leader is strong and can maintain the 5th and 6th corps as well.

I dont like how EIA allow you to have all corps right away in a stack, nor do EIH solve it, because their idea was leaders can stack up, but that leaves many countries in trouble vs France and their many leaders and the you can have almost twice what your leader can command, still gives France too much power.

But my suggestion means, nomatter leader, you can have 4 corps, not just 2 as EIH suggest or unlimited as EIA says, this mean no nation will end up wiped out in 1 battle, unless you fail badly with all your armies of 4 corps, as i said about Prussia, which will have 3 armies generally.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 16
- 10/5/2002 8:40:32 PM   
jnier


Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DodgyDave
[B]my idea of limiting corps per land sector, is actually to avoid stack war and to simulate real live more, as i have been looking at info about napoleon times.

France like all other nations, never had all their corps in one place, they where more spread out, but why would you want them spread out, when you can have them all in 1 place, unless there is a rule saying you cant have more then 4 in a sector, unless your leader is strong and can maintain the 5th and 6th corps as well.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I think Napoleonic history suggests that stacking limits would be an artificial game mechanic. The large pitched battles of the Napoleonic Wars were "stacks wars." Who can get the most troops on the battlefield? That was a key factors in determining the outcome (although by no means the only factor). Napoleon's armies usually TRAVELLED in smaller formations (1 corp), but when contact was made with the enemy, the corps would converge to form as big a monster stack as possible.

So why then did Napoleon's armies travel in smaller groups rather than travelling as a single monstrous stack? The two most important reasons were speed and supply. If each corp is travelling on it's own road, that army will move much faster than an entire army travelling on a single road. Also remember that foraging was a key part of Napoleon's supply system - his troops would often live of the land. Foraging is much easier to do when an army is spread out and therefore has access to the foodstuffs in a much larger area. If the whole army is concentrated in a relatively small area, there isn't much to eat.

I think most Napleonic games try to model this by increasing attrition rates on large stacks. The more men in the stack, the more men will die, desert, of become ill due to lack of suitable foraging opportunites. This seems to be a better and more historical mechanic than simply forbidding large stacks. Again, large stacks happened all the time in this era (How about the "stack" at Leipzig - 500,000 men), but it was only for the actual battle.

I can't recall a game in which large stacks also had a movement penalty. Perhaps this would be an additional mechanic that would deter players from travelling around the mapboard with a monster stack.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 17
- 10/5/2002 9:37:00 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline 		500k people, was that both sides or just one side?

You can still try to form a huge stack, for a battle, by reinforcing the battle, but using the normal rules, then do our battles end up with millions there.

While history do show that there was single big battles then dont i think we should go the same way, my suggestion if for those, who dont want big stack battle to determine the entire war.

Also since i hear that we could click the options we would like to use, then can you still go with the normal Huge Stack wars, that you would normally see in EIA, but i would prefer this one, because i want wars to be more then 1 battle :)

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 18
- 10/5/2002 10:03:28 PM   
jnier


Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline 		The total number engaged at the [URL=http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_leipzig.htm]Battle of Leipzig[/URL] on both sides was about 550,000

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 19
Some thoughts... - 10/6/2002 1:07:56 AM   
Boralinoi

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 10/2/2002
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline 		I guess I fall into the camp that wants to see EiA the board game on the PC (which will facilitate long distance games, etc.) rather than a PC game based on EiA which is easier to play without human opponents and can be accomplished quickly.

Sorry - looking ahead this is long.. bear with me.

I really don't care if it takes three years (real-world time) to finish an 1805 Grand Campaign game. I've played in games that went for 18 months before we lost all the players... granted, this could happen again, but I still had a great deal of fun in that long game even though it never was finished.

I still REALLY like the idea of a dedicated server that you can log into and get updates, then submit your turn when ready, in the normal phased sequence of the original board game. Heck, I'd even be willing to pay a server fee or some other rot to do that. If such a thing were to come about, I'd probably buy copies of EiA for all of my friends and set up two concurrent games, a 'fast' game for those few die-hards like me that I know, and a 'slow' game for those that I know who enjoy the game but are not obsessed about it like I am.

Integrated emails and diplomatic envoys, etc. in the game server for the proposed solution would also be fantastic. Especially if you could include maps as part of the emails.

I still think that it is possible with a game like this to have a VERY sophisticated AI for each of the countries. Using the AFA Historical Aspirations rules as a set of heuristics for an expert system for each country is an excellent place to start, and then a simple backpropogation filter for future decisions based on past performance would create a VERY smart strategic level AI for each of the major powers involved. I would sell my house and move to Istanbul be on the team that gets a chance to implement something like that...

HOWEVER, even with all of this, I think the best games will be against human opponents. Even if whilst playing you find that the AI is smart enough that you cannot determine whether it is AI or human (an achievable goal in this case I think) once you are done with a game like that, one of the most enjoyable things is to be able to get together with your buddies and say things like, "hey, remember when I was playing Austria, Russia declared war on me, and then sued for peace in that very next phase of that same turn? That was classic."

No matter how good the AI -- AI don't drink beer and reminisce.

I have an opinion on the massive stack thing too (I have opinions on everything with this game it seems... I might be a little obsessed) but I'll save that for another post.

- Boralinoi

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 20
nay - 10/6/2002 8:16:55 PM   
IrishGuardsOld

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 10/6/2002
From: Owen Sound Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by jnier
[B]The total number engaged at the [URL=http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_leipzig.htm]Battle of Leipzig[/URL] on both sides was about 550,000 [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 21
Re: nay counting all corps they say 875,000 was the mon... - 10/6/2002 8:19:43 PM   
IrishGuardsOld

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 10/6/2002
From: Owen Sound Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by IrishGuards
[B] [/B][/QUOTE]:confused:

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 22
- 10/6/2002 8:26:56 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		You need help Irishguards?

Dan

_____________________________


(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 23
- 10/7/2002 4:56:01 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline 		Boralinoi,

I have the opposite view to you :) I would much prefer a game like EiA but not exactly EiA. I have played a few games of EiA and enjoyed them but I think the game had a few problems and also made some compromises because it was a boardgame. I have not played Empires in Harm so I do not know if those rules fixed all the problems.

IMHO the Victory conditions of surrenders had a lot of problems. Especially once we had played a couple of games and knew what was going on. An unconditional surrender could really obliterate you. Losing three provinces, some of your corps etc. really knocked you down. 'Shooting cripples' was rife as I recall as was everyone joining in to get in on the unconditional surrenders. This all led to people rarely fighting wars. People would just surrender immediately rather than lose half their army first and then surrender. It is very hard to do well as some powers like Prussia as any one of your three neighbours can knock you down unaided. So if you are doing well (even just by Prussian standards) you still have no real chance of winning long term. You could be forced to unconditionally surrender three times every eighteen months - thats Fiasco zone territory. I would much rather have a new surrender/ losing concequences system than this one.

Then there are the Corps and Leaders themselves. They are all the same size and statistics at 1805 as at 1814. As are the troops in them. A russian infantry is the same as a Russian infantry regardless of whether one is a new recruit with three months training or a veteran of years of hard campaigning and battles throughout Europe. For a boardgame changing any or all of this is hard and may need a lot of extra counters or book keeping but it would be easy for a computer.

I would also like to see some role for Corps commanders in battles rather than just the leader being important (plus having a Cavalry commander underling). That would probably require a slightly different combat system and possibly more Corps and leader counters. While I loved the combat chits and complex morale calculations combat in the game IME it was still hugely luck based. Because every attack had a counter (except Probe IIRC but that rarely led to big wins) the combat choice was usually a random choice between 2 or 3 chits depending on whether your leader had a reasonable Outflank option.

I also think that a game aimed mainly at a limited multiplayer audience (i.e. existing EiA players) is far too narrow to be a commercial success. I very much doubt that an AI can be written that will give exiting EiA players much of a game as they already know how to exploit the system. Where as a new game has more of a chance. Even if it is only filling in playing the weaker powers in a MP game.

ADG are the makers of World in Flames (WIF) a WW2 game. It's a great boardgame and they are turning it into a computer game on their own. Unfortunately they only have programmer - Chris Mancini (sp??) and so they are making a none AI version first. It will be an almost exact port of the boardgame apart from some Map changes. While I will certainly buy this game I cannot help thinking that by doing a direct port they are missing out on some things that that computers can do easily and boardgames cannot.

WIF has simple and largely unrealistic all or nothing supply. Limited build options because there are already thousands of pieces in the game and the game does not want the Commonwealth (CW) to be able to field as large a land army as the Germans etc. While this is good in many ways as it stops countries building things they were not good at, it does reduce flexibility. For example the CW can only build a certain number of CVs even if it does not build many new BBs due to the counter limits (i.e. the game does not just restrict the size and quality of the CW navy - which is good - it also says what it can be made up of regardless of the conditions the CW faces). There are no real research options in the game. Nor experience improvements to units. All these things would not add to the game as a boardgame. They would simply add far more counters and book keeping. But for a computer game most are easy and IMHO would add to the game.

I hope EiA will not go down the same route importing all the restrictions of a boardgame on to the computer.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 24
The Splits - 10/7/2002 8:10:51 PM   
Uncle Toby

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 6/24/2002
Status: offline 		The way I see it a game, paper or computer can best be understood as a group of interrelated mechanisms. These mechanisms are like chapters in a book or subroutines in a computer program. In EiA examples would be the tactical battle resolution or the peace resolution system.

Though a game can be educational, it is primarily entertainment and with entertainment we enter the realm of psychology where there is more art than science. There are many psychological reasons why people play games and there are different kinds of games to suit all those reasons as well as hybrids. EiA is one such hybrid, it is a strategy/historical recreation game. Strategy games are played to compete and win. Recreations are played for the pleasure of imaginative association, the same reason you’d watch an action film. These are the two poles pulling on EiA.

Keeping the goals in mind is essential to making a success of a game design. The mechanisms must be chosen to best achieve the goals, ideally they should reinforce each other in both goals, they certainly should not contradict. Each mechanism to be included should be judged according to how well it fills these criteria.

The potential for conflict in a hybrid strategy/recreation game is mainly in the area of busywork added for historical color, which slows the game and burdens the player while adding nothing to strategy, and in compromises to conform to historical events which unbalance or reduce the quality of strategic decision-making.

EiA as a paper game was very good but still had lots of problem mechanisms, some because they were pushing the limits of paper games, some from bad compromises that are hard to avoid in a hybrid.

Now, at last, we come to the point of my long-winded dissertation. Just as there is a split between those who want a computer version of the paper game and those who want a computer game in the spirit of the paper game, there is a split on the fundamental question of whether you want EiA to be a strategy game with as much historical recreation as doesn’t get in the way, or you want a historical recreation with as much strategy as will fit in the interstices. The goals are not very compatible.

I’m for a computer game in the spirit and a strategy game but this supposes that the designers can improve the game for the computer version. I have a shelf full of computer games which are absolute rubbish, I have played every multi-player strategy game for the computer that has come out in the last ten years and of a hundred games I could count the ones that weren’t carelessly designed junk without taking off my shoes. I’ll wait and see before I buy.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 25
- 10/9/2002 3:34:43 AM   
WarLover

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: San Diego, CA, USA, EARTH
Status: offline 		I would like to see the Naval combat options expanded.
Something along the lines of Doctrine when combat is initiated.
combat options like Boarding and capture, Hot-shot, De-masting, Long range broadside, Cannonade, Flee, Line of battle, Engage.

The Land system has both attacker and defender pick an offensive tactic and defensive counter. It would be nice to have that similar system attached to Naval combat.
As well as Naval Leaders for all sides.

_____________________________

Courage is fear singing a hymn arranged for four voices.
Fear passes. But leaves a record of its stay.
You want to be brave. You also want to be.
But your greatest danger is from your fellow human beings.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 26
- 10/9/2002 5:44:48 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I agree with those who want to see creativity go into this design. The interest for me in the first place came from the idea that someone was going to tackle strategic Napoleonic era gaming from a fresh perspective. I harbored hopes that innovative approaches would be taken to applying the best features of computer capabilities to one of my favorite game subjects.

While I am an inveterate player of EiA, I am worried about the direction this project may be headed. I have never seen EiA as a good candidate for direct translation into a computer game. I am acutely aware of its faults and limitations, most of which have been detailed in this thread.

I will, of course, buy this game. I just want the designers to approach it as a new design, not a slavish attempt at re-creation in bits and bytes of what was good, but not perfect, in cardboard and paper.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 27
- 10/9/2002 10:14:32 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		I'm with you Pasternaski.

I want something "Better than EIA". Without the limits of a boardgame, the possibilities for a much better game are definitely there. The concepts and ideas of EiA are great, but the mechanics and detail can be greatly improved to provide a much better game.

And I think that Matrix can make it happen.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 28
- 10/10/2002 2:16:17 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]I'm with you Pasternaski.

I want something "Better than EIA". Without the limits of a boardgame, the possibilities for a much better game are definitely there. The concepts and ideas of EiA are great, but the mechanics and detail can be greatly improved to provide a much better game.

And I think that Matrix can make it happen. [/B][/QUOTE]

You said it denisohn.

It doesn't matter how much of an old salt one is at EiA, it seems like simultaneous movement will make newbies (to a certain degree) out of everyone.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 29
- 10/10/2002 2:47:22 AM   
Repo Man

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 9/17/2000
From: NY
Status: offline 		What I find very interesting is how two or more people can see the same thing and draw totally opposite conclusions.

Regarding movment:


[I]**Why would simultaneous movement be any faster? If anything it would require either *everyone* to be on line at the exact same time, or the game would be an an impasse until everyone sent their orders in. [/I]

That is exactly why I think simultaneous movement would be faster! Unless everyone can be on line at the same time, you are stuck doing one player's turn per day (assuming one "input" per day) or as you say, an impasse.

For simultaneous movement, each player would submit their turn, after which all turns would be processed as one batch, much akin to the way Stars! plays.

Turning to whether the game should be strict EiA or more, it seems to me there is more agreement than disagreement. From what I gather, there will be a "basic" game which is EiA. From that, there will be a series of options, allowing players to pick and choose how much they want to add or vary from standard EiA.

That being said, and as much as I love EiA, I think to limit the new game to strick EiA would be a lost opportunity. As a starting point, virtually all the new rules from EiH should be optional, as well as expanding in other areas which were simply not practical for a board game.

For example, there is no need to keep the scale as one factor per 1000 to 3000 men. A computer could easily keep track of smaller numbers, and reducing the scale to 100 men per factor or even less is a possiblilty.

Likewise, better supply rules could be incorporated, the actual cost of supply be linked to the number of factors instead of the number of corps.

I would ****strongly**** suggest that the game have some means to allow players to modify game play. One shortcoming of computer games is, until recently, the lack of such ability. I will address this issue in a separate message, as my commanding officers are now calling for my presence. (Capts. 1 and 2, age 15 mos. :) )

_____________________________

Repo Man

(in reply to JParton)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> What would you like to see in this game? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

1.797