May Update

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

May Update

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 >> May Update

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

May Update - 4/30/2003 10:54:05 AM

Marshall Ellis

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

Hey guys:

The may update is a little early but I'm excited so here we go...

First of all, my apologies for the lack of info but my life was a little chaotic in April so I thank you all for your patience. Thank you all for your well wishes!

Second, we're basically done with the basic game and I'm current playing a game myself and doing some stability testing (And having some fun playing this thing!) We also are doing some changes for some of the great graphics that we're getting from the graphics team! Hopefully there will be some screen shots sent out pretty soon!

A Couple Of Things you should know...(Comments welcome)

There is no bidding process for nation selection. Roll the dice or bribe your friend but in this first release there will be no nation bids.

Naval interception is not in the game yet. We're thinking of having some type of "patrol" command for fleets to enable them to auto-intercept but the interaction that is required for a player to announce he or she is intercepting could be difficult (Especially for PBEM).

Naval units are a bit different as well. We have added a few units (Again EIH like). We have Heavy Ships, Light Ships and Transports. Heavy Ships are the big ships of the line. Light Ships have a special ability to perform piracy / anti piracy missions and Transports, obviously transport units (2 Infantry factors / 1 Cavalry factor per ship). Remember this is FACTORS and not CORPS units.

PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations at this time. We will add this on a later release.

Kingdoms are not in the current release (New political combinations).

Freikorps and Cossacks are not in the current game either. The original design did not have these units in the game but tell me your thoughts here...

Minor diplomacy is similar to the EIH game. Minor control (For DOWs) is given to the major nation that has some type of relationship (Influenced or Ally) with the minor. All other minors will be controlled by the computer.

What are your thoughts on a dynamic supply cost indicator visible during land move? This will constantly update as you move your units.

What about a "all forage" button which when clicked would automatically attempt to have all of your units forage?

Sorry for the long post but these are a few of the issues we're trying to clear up. Don't know when we're going to play test but soon. We're going to try and make this thing as stable as possible! Remember this is a first release and NOT the last release. We're REALLY eager to get this thing out so hang-in-there...

Thanks again for your patience...

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

Post #: 1

- 4/30/2003 11:04:30 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

No computer control for Major nations in PBEM?

This could definitely be a problem, as thatt leaves a 7 player PBEM the only option.

That will be difficult finding enough reliable opponents who won't quit to finish a game.

And without naval interception? That is bad. Definitely have to have it.

If there was a way to give a fleet orders with an aggressiveness key.

- Attack the weak
- Normal Intercept
- If it floats, sink it.

Or maybe a geographic key

- Intercept naval force from port/region

To allow for PBEM, it would be important.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 2

- 4/30/2003 11:11:28 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Great to hear from you Marshall, sounds like things are coming along swimingly. I have never played the EiA boardgame so I dont feel qualified to comment on the gameplay situation but from someone who has been captivated by the era for many years, all I can say is that I am looking forward to this game like no other. To have a strategic level wargame of the Napoleonic Wars brought to the computer has been a dream of mine for quite some time. Cheers to all your efforts!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 3

- 4/30/2003 11:15:40 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

No bidding means France wins every game

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 4

- 4/30/2003 2:55:09 PM

martinmb

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/3/2002
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

Marshall,

Thanks for the update we needed this sort of stuff! Quick point of view in point form.

1. Minor diplomacy - Never tried the EiH method but have always been interested in how it worked. I have liked what I have seen and read about it. Go for it.

2. No Bids for Nations - Forget it. :mad: I feel that this is a must for any PBEM game, bad move if not there for PBEM. However, it may be a good move if one is playing against the computer by themselves. (Me vs the computer). This would allow a person to select any nation that they wish to try out. Just to see what it would be like to play. I personally have never played the Turks and would see this as a great chance to do so.

3. No Naval interceptions - :( - I see your point however and can suggest maybe trying to have the option of having the controlling Major nation's fleet the option to select its plan of attack. I like the list presented earlier in this thread by Mr. C. (Sorry I forgot how to spell your name :( )

4. Types of Ships - Potentially (sp) a great idea. :) EiA has always been weak in the naval department. Any improvements that you can make would be helpful.

5. Cossacks - This only affects the Russian player to any degree. It can wait. :)

6. No Kingdoms - :( This could be a whoops as it gives the controlling major power the option to create some Kingdoms for extra corp and/or fleet counters. Some minors do not get corp and/or fleet counters unless they are part of a Kingdom. If it is a issue of time and space restrictions then I suggest that you only include the minors that fit the above profile. The rest could wait for the next release.

As for the rest of the stuff if I have forgotten anything I guess that it was not important enough for me to mention at this time.

Thanks,
Martinmb :cool:

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 5

Some thoughts - 4/30/2003 4:38:16 PM

jamo262

Posts: 82
Joined: 4/21/2003
From: Perth Australia
Status: offline

No computer opponents- The original game allowed for uncontrolled major powers so Im assuming That with less than seven players some one would be controlling another country at this stage . This could be fine but remember the original rules were a bit "bunky"in this regard. I have perused but not played a varient of the uncontrolled major powers rules that may solve the problem. I shall post it to you. It looks like it would be a better system. For others I found it in the depths of a grognard web ring. The Monte & Beth varients and optional rules.

As for no interception at sea. Well I was hoping To have interception on land(see jamo262postApril update). Maybe fleets could be assigned standing orders as someone suggested OR have the interception as an option in the PBEM rules (some of us wont mind the delay) until version 2.

Cossacks were useful to Russia as they had 2 advantages. 1) they enabled Russia to take them as cavalry losses, saving $15 for each one and 2) they made France think twice about invading Russia becaus of their threat to supply lines. They really are integral to the flavour of the game as regards No2 above.

Ship types- my first thoughts are that youve added complexity where you need not have, but there were different ships in those days so...

Kingdoms-Im not sure why they sould be hard to fit in but then Im not a computergame programer-would be if I could be.

In summing up- Why not include things that slow down PBEM play anyway as optionals and we can tell you how it goes later. A game like this I believe should be the final word in strategic warfare/politics of the Napoleonic era and after its release we can have alook and add patches or a version2 to make it perrrfect:p

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 6

Gday from WA - 4/30/2003 5:06:23 PM

jamo262

Posts: 82
Joined: 4/21/2003
From: Perth Australia
Status: offline

Hi all

Look at the EIA options under the downloads button on this page andtell me what you think as regards the uncontrolled major powers rules
http://members.fortunecity.com/lobodeoro080888/eia/
:)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 7

- 4/30/2003 8:32:25 PM

Hoplosternum

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

Hi Marshall,

It's great that this game is so advanced already.

No bidding process is fine by me. Indeed as I think the VPs system is at the heart of the problems with EiA you can scrap VPs completely :)

Do you mean by the PBEM having no computer controlled major powers that there is no AI yet? If so then the full game is still probably a lomg way away :( If it is just a difficulty of fitting an AI into a MP game then thats OK. But hopefully this can be resolved soon as I believe some of the smaller powers can be difficult to have a lot of fun with. It's not that they cannot win but that as Prussia for example you are rarely the master of your own destiny and can seldom act alone.

I think the interception problem is one that will need to be resolved soon after the game is released. You are correct that the traditional style interception will be a nightmare in PBEM but hopefully some kind of automated system can be introduced as it is a large part of the game.

I am very pleased with most of what you've said. The game seems well advanced and you are obviously willing to make some changes where you think it's necessary. Looking forward to it :)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 8

- 4/30/2003 8:58:56 PM

mmurray821

Posts: 35
Joined: 3/12/2003
Status: offline

The lack of naval intercept sounds like a bad idea. The threat of the English fleet chasing your fleet all over creation and sinking it kept the French and most other nations out of the sea lanes when the English were near. Trafalgar being a perfect example of the English fleet�s ability to strike your fleet down wherever it was.

The lack of bidding really doesn't bother me all that much. If there is AI in the game, and if it is decent means that if France pushes its weight around enough, the other countries will be angered enough to ally together and put the French out of action, or at least hamstring it.

Cossacks are an interwoven part of the Russian defense of the homeland and made it extremely difficult, along with the low forage and harsh winters, to successfully invade.

The Kingdoms would be a nice touch, and the extra factors would come in handy, but not real necessary. I could live without them, but pray for an upgrade/patch for their inclusion.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 9

My two cents - 4/30/2003 10:14:06 PM

EricLarsen

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline

Marshall,
It would be good to have the bidding process in the game but there are other methods for choosing sides amicably. Naval interception is a must in order to allow the British to keep the French navy bottled up. Freicorps and Cossacks should be included in the game to keep it more historically accurate for the Russians and Prussians. I thought the Russians did have cossacks in the original board game. That dynamic supply indicator sounds neat but in the board game the forage values were printed on the map. But they were constant and it would be nice to have forage values reduced during the winter without having to figure it out manually. An "All Forage" button would be a user friendly feature that would be appreciated. Definitely need computer controlled players for PBEM games so less than 7 could play without someone getting 2 countries to control and taking advantage of this. The more detailed naval units is also a good improvement.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 10

- 5/1/2003 12:12:34 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

Sounds like England will be very easy to conquer w/o interception
Even one super corp landing in England will end the war.

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 11

My two bits - 5/1/2003 4:32:08 AM

ABP

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

Bidding process:
I think you should consider this again. The way I see it the purpose of the bidding process is for weaker nations to have a chance of winning the game on points even if they are beat millitarily. If you remove the bidding it will be unlikely that anyone but France will win the game. Forget about finding 7 stable players in that case. If you remove bidding you should change winning conditions as well.
If the problem is that IA-players can't bid you could maybe do like this.
Normally all players submit their bid for all nations. You then allocate the nations as normal for the human players. When there are no human players left the computer takes control of the rest of the countries at the average of all bids for this nation, maybe disregarding the highest and the lowest bid.

Naval interception:
I have to agree that I can't see how the game mechanics will work without interception. It will be impossible for England to effectively block all French, Russian and Spanish ports, in force, if they gang up on him.

Naval units:
Fine with that.

PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations:
Not a big worry for me.

Kingdoms:
Fine. Most are rarely used anyway.

Freikorps and Cossacks:
Have not much experience with Freikorps so I have no opinion.
However I think Russia will be much weaker without Cossacks. This is due to their effectiveness in tying up enemy forces on supply routes with low risk of loosing them. You cannot do the same with corps, and Russia do not have enough to do that either.

Minor diplomacy:
Ok.

Dynamic supply cost indicator:
I think this is a great idea. Will the game automatically try to trace the best supply route for the move?

"All forage" button:
Good if it is limited for each area. Maybe it should be "remaining forage" where depot supply is handled first.

Don't appologise for long posts. The more info the better!

Screenshots with interfaces would be good, for you to get opinions on that as well. The basic map look good. Small changes will not harm the overall appearence.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 12

- 5/1/2003 7:46:19 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

I've been lurning here since before Christmas, trying to contain the growing excitement of finally getting to play EIA against an opponent!

Marshall, thanks for the continual updates, and for the unique way you have asked and taken suggestions from the many experienced players on the forum.

More games should be developed with this openess and information.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 13

- 5/1/2003 8:27:09 PM

Dagfinn

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Western Norway
Status: offline

No interception? Very bad. It is probably impossible to play England without some kind of interception.

No Cossacks? Not good to Russia. I was under the impression that they WERE part of the original... :confused:

_____________________________

In our darkest hours all the shades are gray

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 14

Re: May Update - 5/1/2003 9:08:28 PM

Le Tondu

Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Thanks a gazillion Marshall,

It is too easy to mistakenly think that early releases are final releases. We'll be fine just as long as a commitment this important is seen through to it's completion. Thanks as always for the hard work.

Bidding ok for now. I can wait for that.

Naval interception could possibly be done randomly with certain nations getting a +plus to their ability depending upon which nation it is and their historical ability to do that? Patience is rule.

I like the different sized ships. How does an infantry factor on a ship relate to a Corps? How many will it take to complete a Corps? Does this mean that sub-Corps sized units will be in the game? Maybe Brigades or Divisions?

The lack of computer controlled major nations for PBEM games means that a two person game will have each guy will controlling more than one? No problem waiting for this one.

Kingdoms would definitely be nice and an integral part of the game. No problem waiting for that one too.

As for a Freikorps, isn't that just a weak Corps that is used for interdiction purposes? Will each nation get have so many which will fulfill that role?

As for cossacks, every OOB that I've seen has them as a part of some Corps. I see no reason to have them as seperate units on the map. They just acted independently. Certainly, they interdicted, but their effectiveness as general cavalry should increase the closer they get to Paris, IMO.

Minor diplomacy is fine.

The dynamic supply cost indicator and "all forage" button are great ideas.

Yeah, screenshots. :)

A big thanks goes out (again) for all of the hard work.
Rick :)

PS. Can you tell us how FOW will be handled?

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 15

- 5/1/2003 11:34:27 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

Hi Marshall,

I would like to add to the grognard chorus to thank you for keeping us in the loop and asking for feedback. Here are my thoughts:

Bidding:
I think the need for a bidding process has to be a top priority to gather enough players who will remain committed to a 7 player PBEM game. This will have even greater import if there is no AI in PBEM. What will happen is that the 3 powers with a shot at winning, France, GB and Russia will be the only ones with good odds of playing through. Not in every game of course, but in a large percentage.

Naval Intercept:
This is a MUST if GB is to stand a chance and be of interest to play. It will also effect the other powers to some degree. A criteria based rule for intercept may be the best way. But if not then slowing down the game a bit to allow for an intercept phase may be the way to go.

Naval/Units:
Great move.

Computer Controlled majors:
What happens if a major bails in a PBEM game? Finding another player for a down-trodden AH could be a bit challenging. I do understand the complexities of an AI for this type of game (ADG, if it ever releases World in Flames will not have an AI... hey why don't you guys take over that one from them as well, but I digress).

Kingdoms:
Future release is fine

Freikorps/Cossacks:
Will impact the game, but I don't think is a killer

Minor Diplomacy:
Will impact the game, but I don't think is a killer

Dynamic Supply:
Excellent

All forage:
Great idea, but per the suggestion above it should be "All Forage" after you have paid for the corps you choose to pay for.

I hope this helps, good stuff so far but w/o Intercept and bids I might not buy. The rest matter but are not show stoppers.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 16

- 5/2/2003 3:20:00 AM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

I echo most of the comments about the need for interception and major power AI when you don't have 7 players.

I agree with Hoplosternum regarding VPs being the core issue. Bidding, imo, was at best a band-aid, and was routinely abused by players who bid the moon for their coveted country.

Cossacks are a must. It's part of what makes Russia so invulnerable.

Different ship types sounds good. Though I have purist-like tendencies, the naval area is definitely ripe for a few nice modifications.

All in all it sounds like great advances are being made.

I think interception really must be added as soon as possible. Even if it takes the form of a "patrol" feature that allows stacks to patrol and intercept.

No Ottoman Empire? That bites for Turkey. The Ottoman Empire is awesome and makes the Turk a more viable country.

The rest of the Kingdoms come so far down the road that it's hard to really state what the impact would be to not have them (since few games get that far)...but the Ottoman Empire is critical - sometimes even in 1805, right Dan?).

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 17

Bidding - 5/2/2003 4:58:02 AM

ABP

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

As Reknoy writes bidding is sometimes abused by players that only want to win on the battlefield and ignore the VP's.
These players imo are really almost cheating as the objective of the game is to win on points.
My playing group has discussed various ways of countering that, but none have been tried.
Mod alternative 1: Players bid victory point as normal, but will at the same time risk loosing political starting status. F.ex. for every 5 VP bid 1 lot will added to a draw. A dice (d6) is rolled for each lot. If the roll is 4 or higher the political status is move one box towards fiasco zone.
Mod alternative 2: For every 5 VP's bid 1 inf factor is lost in the starting strengh.
Both options should limit wild bidding as short term stabillity of your country will be hurt.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 18

Bidding idea - 5/2/2003 7:40:23 AM

Le Tondu

Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

HOW ABOUT......

....Everyone getting to bid like normal, but after the bidding is completed and the sides are "assigned," the sides are then all randomly shuffled and then re-handed out? You may or may not get that nation that you bid on originally. Someone else might get it. OR you might retain it.

You know, this might cause folks to pause enough and be more careful in their bidding. It just might eliminate the abuse and "cheating" that ABP has mentioned.

I know that it might be able to be done without the aid of the computer, but having the computer do it will make things be above the table for all to see. Another thought would be that it would have to happen with a diferent mix each time. Predictability would have to be avoided.

It is just a thought. What do you think?

Afterall is said and done, this is just a game.
:)

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 19

Re: Bidding idea - 5/2/2003 8:53:22 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu
[B]HOW ABOUT......

....Everyone getting to bid like normal, but after the bidding is completed and the sides are "assigned," the sides are then all randomly shuffled and then re-handed out? You may or may not get that nation that you bid on originally. Someone else might get it. OR you might retain it.

You know, this might cause folks to pause enough and be more careful in their bidding. It just might eliminate the abuse and "cheating" that ABP has mentioned.

I know that it might be able to be done without the aid of the computer, but having the computer do it will make things be above the table for all to see. Another thought would be that it would have to happen with a diferent mix each time. Predictability would have to be avoided.

It is just a thought. What do you think?

Afterall is said and done, this is just a game.
:) [/B][/QUOTE]

If someone wants to bid 200 points for a country, I say let them.

My bids routinely go like this:

Turkey - 1
Spain - 2
Prussia - 3
Austria - 4
Russia - 5
France - 6
England - 7

And that is all. If that means I play Turkey, I play the best possible Turkey I can.

I know I will beat someone that bid 200 for France.

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 20

!!! - 5/2/2003 11:35:06 AM

mariovalleemtl

Posts: 360
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline

- PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations at this time.

I hope you could do something with that because it will be hard to find 7 guys every time you wont to start a new game. Most of the time we play 1 on 1. I really would like to see the AI play all the other country.

:confused:

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 21

- 5/2/2003 5:10:52 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

I like APB's balancing point on the bidding. It would help temper the "I gotta be France" faction.

Marshall, if there was an editor with the game the bidding and any mods could be done by the players. That might assist with getting the game out but still fun.

And don't forget intercepts

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 22

- 5/2/2003 8:24:21 PM

Wynter

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline

Thanks for the update, Marshall.

In my opinion, it would be best for the game to have Naval Interception, New Political Combinations and Cossacks included in the first release.
-Naval Interception is what keeps Britain alive.
-New Political Combinations are some of the goals you have when playing the game (Turkey wants the Ottoman Empire, France wants the Confederation of the Rhine and Prussia or Russia both want Poland...). Without these combinations, you'll lack some of the finesse of the game.
-Cossacks... well, everyone hates Cossacks. The sneaky bastards always get into your way and sneak up to your depots. It makes invading Russia very challenging!

On a side note, are Spanish guerillas included in the game?

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 23

Re: May Update - 5/3/2003 12:32:39 AM

Roads

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline

This is sounding very cool
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall
Ellis
[B]
There is no bidding process for nation selection. Roll the dice or bribe your friend but in this first release there will be no nation bids.

Seems OK, as people should be able to bid offline. Would be nice to hardcode in 'typical' bids for now to simplify it for newbies.

quote:

Naval interception is not in the game yet. We're thinking of having some type of "patrol" command for fleets to enable them to auto-intercept but the interaction that is required for a player to announce he or she is intercepting could be difficult (Especially for PBEM).

I echo everyone else. Something is needed or Britain becomes unplayable

quote:

Naval units are a bit different as well. We have added a few units (Again EIH like). We have Heavy Ships, Light Ships and Transports. Heavy Ships are the big ships of the line. Light Ships have a special ability to perform piracy / anti piracy missions and Transports, obviously transport units (2 Infantry factors / 1 Cavalry factor per ship). Remember this is FACTORS and not CORPS units.

Transport/warship seperation is a very good idea that I like. Not sure I see the point in seperating out small ships. Will have to see.

quote:

PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations at this time. We will add this on a later release.

Tough for when people drop but manageable I suppose. Would it be possible for a user to run the game in SP and then make the moves the AI made? Still requires a GM but may be a work around.

quote:

Kingdoms are not in the current release (New political combinations).

no biggie

quote:

Freikorps and Cossacks are not in the current game either. The original design did not have these units in the game but tell me your thoughts here...

I don't see that lack of Freikorps hurts Austria or Prussia too much. Cossacks is too bad but...

quote:

Minor diplomacy is similar to the EIH game. Minor control (For DOWs) is given to the major nation that has some type of relationship (Influenced or Ally) with the minor. All other minors will be controlled by the computer.

Don't know enough about it but sounds cool.
quote:

What are your thoughts on a dynamic supply cost indicator visible during land move? This will constantly update as you move your units.

What about a "all forage" button which when clicked would automatically attempt to have all of your units forage?[/B][/QUOTE]

Sounds great

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 24

- 5/3/2003 12:44:14 AM

Ancient One

Posts: 178
Joined: 7/1/2000
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter
[B]-New Political Combinations are some of the goals you have when playing the game (Turkey wants the Ottoman Empire, France wants the Confederation of the Rhine and Prussia or Russia both want Poland...). Without these combinations, you'll lack some of the finesse of the game.[/B][/QUOTE]How is the Ottoman Empire a "New Political Combination"? I thought this was supposed to be a historical game, the Ottoman Empire has existed for centuries prior to the Napoleonic Wars. :confused:

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 25

- 5/3/2003 5:33:10 PM

Wynter

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zagys
[B]How is the Ottoman Empire a "New Political Combination"? I thought this was supposed to be a historical game, the Ottoman Empire has existed for centuries prior to the Napoleonic Wars. :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

In Empires in Arms 'The Ottoman Empire' is composed of the North African territories while, what was historicaly called 'Ottoman Empire', is called 'Turkey'.
In Empires in Harm this is changed: The Ottoman Empire is the player nation, while the North African territories can be formed into The Barbary Coast and The Mameluks, which is historicaly correct.
Bear in mind that while Empires in Arms has an historical flavour, it is by no means historicaly correct.

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 26

- 5/3/2003 6:49:37 PM

Reknoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline

Seeing Jeroen's post reminds me of our current PBEM game and how anxious I am to see what happens in January. :)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 27

- 5/3/2003 11:28:45 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

My take regarding the "May Issues":

quote:

Naval interception is not in the game yet. We're thinking of having some type of "patrol" command for fleets to enable them to auto-intercept but the interaction that is required for a player to announce he or she is intercepting could be difficult (Especially for PBEM).

Like others, I think this has to be included. If a patrol function is used, I would also like an option for doing it regularly for those so disposed.

quote:

Naval units are a bit different as well. We have added a few units (Again EIH like).

Yep, nicely done.

quote:

PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations at this time. We will add this on a later release.

Ouch, ouch, ouch. Most likely, I would be playing one on one PBEM. Not having a programmed opponent for nonhuman players would seriously reduce game interest. Dunno if "early release" w/o this component would be worth it then. "Later release" WITH this feature would be my preference.

quote:

Kingdoms are not in the current release (New political combinations).

Hmm, not sure why. Seems these were important in the game.

quote:

Freikorps and Cossacks are not in the current game either. The original design did not have these units in the game but tell me your thoughts here...

By "original design" you MUST be going back before the AH version, b/c AH's [I]does[/I] have these units. Again, think these are imperative for the "right" feel of the game, particularly 1812 and beyond. (And if you can implement cossacks, then freikorps would essentially be the same.)

quote:

Minor diplomacy is similar to the EIH game. Minor control (For DOWs) is given to the major nation that has some type of relationship (Influenced or Ally) with the minor. All other minors will be controlled by the computer.

Fine. NP.

quote:

What are your thoughts on a dynamic supply cost indicator visible during land move? This will constantly update as you move your units.

Fantastic!

quote:

What about a "all forage" button which when clicked would automatically attempt to have all of your units forage?

Ditto; except with the proviso that it only applies to units not already moved w/o forage.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 28

- 5/6/2003 1:53:24 AM

pfnognoff

Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

No bidding will not be a big problem, if the VP levels are ajusted accordingly. On the other hand I must say that in all my games it was a nice and exciting prelude to the actual game. If you substitute the bidding with a single dice roll, with my luck, I will allways end up playing Prussia. ;)

Some kind of naval interception is a must. Britain falls without it. It has to be there, even if it means dividing the turn in phases.

Kingdoms were allways important, both for diplomacy as well as increasing your army with additional counters. Some are prerequisites for declaring major power status!

As for all EiH options I would say, the more you include the better.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 29

- 5/6/2003 4:50:07 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

[QUOTE]No bidding will not be a big problem, if the VP levels are ajusted accordingly. On the other hand I must say that in all my games it was a nice and exciting prelude to the actual game. If you substitute the bidding with a single dice roll, with my luck, I will allways end up playing Prussia. [/QUOTE]

I'm not sure you can adjust the VPs accurately to reflect different player skills and preferences. With a bidding system this is mainly overcome (there are still those guys who will bail if they don't get their way but this should weed them out early)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 30