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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 5/6/2003 5:09:22 PM

Wynter

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

On bidding:
My experience is that you have a more stable gaming group if, before you start playing, you divide the countries by mutual agreement. That way each player can have the country where he feels himself most comfortable with. If a player gets 'stuck' with a certain country he absolutely dislikes because of the bidding, chances are that he will quit at the first possible moment.
Of course, this dividing of countries can take some time as some nations are favoured by all players and some find no appeal.
In our gaming group nobody wanted to play France (strange isn't it) and there were two candidates for Britain. In the end, one of those two agreed to play France and in 1809 he forced Britain to surrender (with a little help of his allies Turkey (which is me) and Spain).
Hmmm, what was the topic again...:rolleyes: oh, yeah, bidding... Bidding is in my opinion not something the gamedevelopers should focus on, it is not important.

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 31

- 5/6/2003 5:20:41 PM

pfnognoff

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yohan
[B]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) [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree, my point was if it will not be included, VP levels should be higher according to the average (reasonable bids). If I'm not mistaken the original board version manual has some values... or was it in EiH... it's been a while... :)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 32

- 5/6/2003 6:37:10 PM

Dagfinn

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wynter
[B]On bidding:
My experience is that you have a more stable gaming group if, before you start playing, you divide the countries by mutual agreement. That way each player can have the country where he feels himself most comfortable with. If a player gets 'stuck' with a certain country he absolutely dislikes because of the bidding, chances are that he will quit at the first possible moment.
Of course, this dividing of countries can take some time as some nations are favoured by all players and some find no appeal.
In our gaming group nobody wanted to play France (strange isn't it) and there were two candidates for Britain. In the end, one of those two agreed to play France and in 1809 he forced Britain to surrender (with a little help of his allies Turkey (which is me) and Spain).
Hmmm, what was the topic again...:rolleyes: oh, yeah, bidding... Bidding is in my opinion not something the gamedevelopers should focus on, it is not important.

Jeroen. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agree 100%. I have the same experience as you in this mather.

Except the surrender of Britain... :)

_____________________________

In our darkest hours all the shades are gray

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 33

- 5/6/2003 8:46:32 PM

mmurray821

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

I prefer Prussia. The fact it can horde manpower and good access to minor countries it can be powerful. Just don't anger your neighbors for a few years. By that time, Britain should be looking for a good ally, and Blutcher has arrived. Can you say, "Massive amount of factors in a hurry?"

hehehehehe

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 34

- 5/7/2003 12:58:00 AM

Khi

Posts: 21
Joined: 12/20/2001
Status: offline

Echoing a lot of what's already been said, but just to add my voice:

Bidding:
On a scale like the grand campaign, bidding is probably completely unnecessary. Players who are merely keeping track of VP's have ample time to adapt their strategy to take down the leader (France?) if they want. I find it best when the players commit to a power they want to play, rather than have a power they can win with, but don't enjoy playing.

Naval Intercept:
If naval is separated out from land combat, and Britain retains the "move when I want to" power, this isn't quite as important. I don't know if going to be the case, though, and if not, Britain needs some way of tracking down errant ships.

Naval/Units:
I'd have to see it in order to judge, but my first reaction is it might needlessly complicate. EiA is primarily a land war/diplomatic struggle, and I believe there can be such a thing as "too much realism."

Computer Controlled majors:
Most desirable, and likely hardest to implement. Any AI is going to be inferior to a player, so it's presence isn't going to be a panacea, but like others have said- it'd be a good patch for the inevitability of a player bailing out mid-game.

Kingdoms:
If this never enterred, it'd be missed, but probably wouldn't change the flow of the game much. I'd miss the routine of dissecting Poland, and then reconstituting it.

Freikorps/Cossacks:
Freikorps- largely pointless. Cossacks were a way for Russia to save money while threatening supply lines. Could be implemented artificially through other means.

Minor Diplomacy:
Fantastic to see EiH rules here! EiA was, IMO, too limited with regards to minors.

Dynamic Supply/ All forage:
Both sound uber-cool! Lemme see! Lemme see!!!

Eager to get my hands on it, whatever its limitations...

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 35

- 5/7/2003 2:41:18 AM

Chiteng

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

I certainly dont agree.

On Bidding:

If you dont think you have a chance of winning, then you get 'ahistorical' "kamikaze' play. I like a chance to win, more than I like being a 'spoiler'.

I dont like games where it is 'we must stop France or we will all die' The predetermines what is going to happen.

Kingdoms are crucial if you intend to actually invade England.
You NEED those spare fleets, just as badly as he needs to sink them.

The absence of Freikorp and Cossaks CRIPPLES both
Russia and Prussia. It makes invading either one, MUCH easier.

_____________________________

�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 #: 36

- 5/7/2003 2:54:44 AM

Reknoy

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

So the Kingdom of Two Sicilies and the Kingdom of Sweden are out, too? What about Denmark (seeing as how it has two provinces as well)?

Only the Kingdom of Northern Italy has an extra fleet apart from that.

I would think that Sweden and Sicily still have fleets in the game, so we're only talking about the Venetian fleet (which comes later anyway).

As for bidding, I agree with Khi. I have been in involved in a number of games where a bid would have done little to change the outcome in a material way (or at least, we could have adapted with our without).

As for the Freikorps -- what?? I can't recall a game where they made a difference. Cossacks -- YES, I agree 110%. Especially when you invade Russia and double the output of cossacks. 6 cavalry factors that can run all over the map!!

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 37

- 5/7/2003 3:07:16 AM

Chiteng

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]So the Kingdom of Two Sicilies and the Kingdom of Sweden are out, too? What about Denmark (seeing as how it has two provinces as well)?

Only the Kingdom of Northern Italy has an extra fleet apart from that.

I would think that Sweden and Sicily still have fleets in the game, so we're only talking about the Venetian fleet (which comes later anyway).

As for bidding, I agree with Khi. I have been in involved in a number of games where a bid would have done little to change the outcome in a material way (or at least, we could have adapted with our without).

As for the Freikorps -- what?? I can't recall a game where they made a difference. Cossacks -- YES, I agree 110%. Especially when you invade Russia and double the output of cossacks. 6 cavalry factors that can run all over the map!!

Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE]

Portugal
Sicily
Venice
Denmark
Holland
Sweden

They all have fleets and even ONE ship can carry an entire corp.

You can swamp the English defence if you have them all.

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 38

- 5/7/2003 3:33:40 AM

Reknoy

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

Chiteng: I just re-read the original post. I may be wrong, but I think we're only talking about the New Political Combinations.

Kingdom of Italy;
Kingdom of Bavaria;
Ottoman Empire;
Kingdom of Westphalia;
Confederation of the Rhine; and
...I'm forgetting.

Anyway -- only one of these (Italy) has a fleet counter that would not be present if the "Kingdom" options were not included.

IMO, the Ottoman is the real bummer of the group. The rest are not as critical in any given game.

All free states like Portugal et al can still field fleets (I would have to imagine).

Further, depending on the rules a "fleet" may not be able to transport a corps of any size. There are different options that may be employed.

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 39

- 5/7/2003 4:16:26 AM

Chiteng

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]Chiteng: I just re-read the original post. I may be wrong, but I think we're only talking about the New Political Combinations.

Kingdom of Italy;
Kingdom of Bavaria;
Ottoman Empire;
Kingdom of Westphalia;
Confederation of the Rhine; and
...I'm forgetting.

Anyway -- only one of these (Italy) has a fleet counter that would not be present if the "Kingdom" options were not included.

IMO, the Ottoman is the real bummer of the group. The rest are not as critical in any given game.

All free states like Portugal et al can still field fleets (I would have to imagine).

Further, depending on the rules a "fleet" may not be able to transport a corps of any size. There are different options that may be employed.

Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE]

Well the Ottoman can be easily fixxed

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 40

- 5/7/2003 9:32:22 AM

YohanTM2

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

[QUOTE]Well the Ottoman can be easily fixxed[/QUOTE]

How if Kingdoms are not in? House rule? Who the freak would want to play Turkey?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 41

- 5/7/2003 10:03:19 AM

Chiteng

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yohan
[B]How if Kingdoms are not in? House rule? Who the freak would want to play Turkey? [/B][/QUOTE]

Should not really be hard to code it.
I mean do a census, is the flag set, give the goodies.

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 42

Ottomans and other Turk questions - 5/7/2003 8:28:40 PM

Yorlum

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/18/2003
Status: offline

There are many benefits to the Ottoman Empire, if controlled by Turkey that are forgone if New political combinations are not allowed.

First and foremost, the increase in morale for the Ottoman [minor countries, NOT Turk home and feudal corps] is a major benefit.

Also, the remission of tribute is a substantial gain that is lost. The Ottoman Empire is unique among minor states in that it can give the controlling major income while a free state.

Question for the developers: What about the Podolian, Transyllvanian and Crimean feudal corps? Will they be available if the provinces are ceded to the Turk?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 43

- 5/7/2003 8:43:29 PM

Le Tondu

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pfnognoff
[B]........As for all EiH options I would say, the more you include the better. [/B][/QUOTE]

What beautiful words they are.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 44

Options - 5/7/2003 9:36:59 PM

Yorlum

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/18/2003
Status: offline

As has been discussed in other locations, I think that EiH options have both their appeal and their market, but that such options would be best if they were �selectable� though an options screen, allowing the user to play a pure EiA game if they wished, and add details and options as they become more accustomed to the game.

This is, with all due respect to those designers who put such effort and thought into EiH, *Empires in Arms*, and a good deal of the benefit of using the franchise is that you have a built-in audience. I urge Matirx not to ignore that in their development effort.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 45

- 5/11/2003 9:43:01 AM

JRichert

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Memphis, TN
Status: offline

I agree Yorlum.

Also, in regards to bidding, that is part of this game. Some people want to play France, sometimes several, and sometimes the only way to resolve this is by bidding. Additionally, bidding also levels the playing field. If I remember correctly, France needs 400 VPs to win, and Turkey needs 315. This means France needs 12.75 VPs per phase to win, and Turkey needs 9.8. France is much more likely to meet this goal than Turkey, UNLESS bidding is brought into the equation. The person playing Turkey is probably not going to have her VP requirements changed much by this. However the person playing France may need to gain almost one extra VP per VP phase to win the game based upon her bid!

The Cossaks and Freikorps are necessary for all powers that receive them. In EiA they were treated as an additional Cav Corps with a strength of 1. They were great for additional cav support, but could reduce your tac rating if you used enough of them.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 46

- 5/11/2003 2:47:21 PM

Wynter

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRichert
[B]France needs 400 VPs to win, and Turkey needs 315. This means France needs 12.75 VPs per phase to win, and Turkey needs 9.8.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, they need to gain less points...
The Grand Campaign consists of 11 years (january 1805 until December 1815) with 4 economy phases each year. Thus average each phase: Turkey: 7.16, France: 9.1.

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 47

- 5/11/2003 7:09:04 PM

sandy

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

I honestly don't care for the bidding stuff, better to have the game set different objectives or winning posts for each state. At least thats how we played it at the club....

I just want to see the following

1- In single player, the ability to choose whatever state you wish without the fuss of bidding against the AI.
2- The ability to have multiplayer games which the (not sh*t) AI can take over the main powers that are not human controlled.

I am really looking forward to this game

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 48

- 5/11/2003 8:57:36 PM

Chiteng

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

W/o bidding France will win every game. Doesnt that matter?

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 49

Nope - 5/11/2003 9:59:18 PM

Le Tondu

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]W/o bidding France will win every game. Doesnt that matter? [/B][/QUOTE]
Why should it? ;)

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 50

Re: Nope - 5/11/2003 10:00:37 PM

Chiteng

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu
[B]Why should it? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

If I am not France, it matters to ME =)

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 51

- 5/11/2003 10:24:32 PM

JRichert

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Memphis, TN
Status: offline

Which is exactly why bidding is important, even if math isn't very important to me! :D

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 52

- 5/12/2003 4:48:46 PM

Hoplosternum

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

I don't really see why France wins every time if you don't bid. Such multiplayer games tend to be self balancing to a degree. Also a bad first war that is fought too long can easily see France in the Fiasco zone when she folds. Then all the remaining minors go and shes lost dominant status.....

Besides in any multiplayer game with VPs accumulated over the game you get this horrible gang up on the leader factor. Bidding will not really help with this.

Most of us who are going to give up the time necessary to play this game multiplayer are not going to win (do the maths :D ). Many of us are going to clearly not be in the running for much of the game. Focusing on who and how someone wins is a bit of a sideshow IMHO.

Besides in all the games of EiA I have played (and other similar MP Boardgames such as EU) who wins is relatively unimportant. The fun, the balance, the topic and ease of play are what makes most play. Later the stories are about improbable victories, skillful alliances and treacherous double crosses as well as analysing the successes and failures of campaigns. Not who has finally won, which is more often decided by the actions of those who can no longer win rather than any particular brilliance on the part of the victor. Who really cares about Spain's boast that he's won because from 1807 he kept his head down and won by economically manipulating until the end of the game? Who would even want to be that Spanish player? But playing as Spain and ruling the Med or luring the French into the heart of the peninsula and watch his army starve to death are the real victories. Even if they are transient ones and not reflected in the final VP tally.

I know many of you have played games of EiA to the end. But most games don't go the distance. I think bidding is one of the least important aspects of the game. Much bigger questions are how interception is going to be handled and how England and France's turn order choice will work. Both can kill this game MP stone dead.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 53

- 5/12/2003 7:55:47 PM

Yorlum

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/18/2003
Status: offline

I agree with Hoplosternum.

If you want bidding, there is nothing to stop you from doing it offline.

Just record the bids and assign players accordingly. Subtract your bids from the score.

It would be nice if you could do it on-line, but I'm more interested in the other aspects of this than something that has such an easy workaround.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 54

- 5/13/2003 2:34:10 AM

Chiteng

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorlum
[B]I agree with Hoplosternum.

If you want bidding, there is nothing to stop you from doing it offline.

Just record the bids and assign players accordingly. Subtract your bids from the score.

It would be nice if you could do it on-line, but I'm more interested in the other aspects of this than something that has such an easy workaround. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you want people to stick around for a 60 turn game....
You need to realize that not everyone likes to get beat up routinely. Part of the 'fun' is making sure that the person(s)
that bid too high, dont win. That extra turn you hold Kiev,
that un-needed naval battle, the casual loss of Holland.
These things add up.

W/O bidding, I know that there is no possible way that Turkey will ever win. So if I play, I 'donate' my time to the other players.
I 'might' do that, but my play will not have that hard edge, that trying to WIN will.

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 55

- 5/13/2003 2:37:52 AM

Yorlum

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/18/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]
W/O bidding, I know that there is no possible way that Turkey will ever win. So if I play, I 'donate' my time to the other players.
I 'might' do that, but my play will not have that hard edge, that trying to WIN will. [/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Go ahead and bid. just record the bids on an e-mail and subtract them out manually.

The game could say that France scored 400, but if they bid 50, you and the others all know that they only have 350.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 56

- 5/13/2003 2:39:52 AM

Reknoy

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

I'm not saying I disagree with the spirit of what Chiteng is saying, but I have seen a share of games where the Turkeys of the world win it.

So I think the global generalization may be a tad overboard, but bidding has its place with the right players to be certain.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 57

- 5/13/2003 2:42:29 AM

Chiteng

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy
[B]I'm not saying I disagree with the spirit of what Chiteng is saying, but I have seen a share of games where the Turkeys of the world win it.

So I think the global generalization may be a tad overboard, but bidding has its place with the right players to be certain. [/B][/QUOTE]

If Turkey 'won' w/o bidding, then someone let them win.
Russia can easily defeat Turkey all by itself.

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 58

- 5/13/2003 2:54:05 AM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]If Turkey 'won' w/o bidding, then someone let them win.
Russia can easily defeat Turkey all by itself. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hey, it's a seven player game. If everyone behaves rationally, then stop the leader alliances will emerge that at least in theory should give any one a shot at victory.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 59

- 5/13/2003 2:58:57 AM

Reknoy

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

I think it's all in how you play it.

France was able to maintain a game long edge against the rest of the world (composed of a list of solid players) due to Turkish aid. Turkey was run by one of the best players I have played with, and he simply gained the points needed.

Again, the generalization "someone let him win" doesn't really scratch the surface. It's being contrary without offering much in my opinion.

I agree with a lot that you write, but the broad brush approach misses, I think, the specifics that generally determine the final outcome.

I agree that it takes longer for a game to really "play out" and start to show front runners with any level of predictability (unless you bid).

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 60