Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/23/2005 12:34:13 PM

Hanal

Posts: 2312
Joined: 11/1/2003
Status: offline

So for those in the know, what are the similarities and differences between the two games?

Post #: 1

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/23/2005 4:37:37 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

I've only played the boardgame, I haven't looked very closely at the game under development through Matrix, so I can only really compare COG to the boardgame.

COG is a strategy game played on the map of Europe and a tactical game played out on dynamically generated hex maps. In the design I tried to unite these two aspects of the game as much as possible. I didn't want it to seem like two separate games strung together -- a strategy game and a tactical game -- so a lot of game design is involved in uniting the two levels of play. Speaking loosely, maybe we can call it a game of operational strategy, or to use Napoleon's term, a game of "grand tactics."

The boardgame, by way of comparison, focuses on the strategic level of the game.

(in reply to Hanal)

Post #: 2

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/23/2005 7:48:24 PM

ASHBERY76

Posts: 2136
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline

The game made for the PC platform looks better than the straight forward boardgame conversion at this point.

< Message edited by ASHBERY76 -- 3/23/2005 7:52:32 PM >

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 3

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/24/2005 2:49:32 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I played AH War & Peace many years ago. I've been looking forward to a decent Napoleonic grand strategy PC game, and now we have both EiA and CoG about to be released. I'm interested in both, for different reasons.

EiA has extensive gameplay experience and has matured over the years. I expect the PC version to play very well straight out of the box if it's a faithful adaptation.

CoG has a lot of great advertised features, but so did Hearts of Iron which failed to live up to a lot of expectations. Where EiA may be a more basic and fundamental wargame, CoG offers more detail and richness. It probably comes at a price, in terms of complexity and micromanagement, but at least the game will allow players to toggle ministers on/off to handle details. Space Empires did this and I liked it; HOI did not. I'm intrigued by games like this which allows me to watch the drama unfold and to step in to micromanage if and when I choose to. Or when I'm ready.

I'm still concerned about all the complexity and whether it plays well or not. If it does, then I'll be happy. I like the tactical map feature, false spy reports idea, and several other innovations mentioned. This should be a fun game. I'm interested to see some AARs and reviews.

(in reply to Hanal)

Post #: 4

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/24/2005 7:15:17 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

I am not yet familiar with this title, but I do happen to know a little about EiA. I will say this, despite the large manual and numerous rules and options, EiA relies a LOT on luck. IMHO there are four major theaters of this luck factor. In order from most to least as I think it:

1. Diplomacy
2. Fog of War
3. Chit Selection
4. Dice

This is arguable no doubt. For example, those players who like to do a lot of gambits will quite often rely heavily on the Fog of War estimations. Other�s who are keen on keeping track of elements in their head, and play safe will have less surprises with total enemy factor �guestimations�.

Of course dice should never be underestimated, they often can win the battle. However the mechanics do not get rediculusly out of hand, as say Axis & Allies does with its recursive battle system.

But make no mistake about it, diplomacy is the number one luck factor. Depending who is willing to ally or crush you is the largest factor of them all.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 5

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/25/2005 1:23:22 AM

Regeurk

Posts: 24
Joined: 11/17/2004
From: Denver, Colo.
Status: offline

I agree entirely, Pippin, that diplomacy is one of the primary "unpredictables" in EiA; but I don't know if I would term that "luck." Luck is something totally out of your control; but diplomacy, at least, is an area where you have some element of control, at least in terms of persuasion (and some people are better than others).

Anyway, enjoyed reading your post (as I always do.)

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 6

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/25/2005 3:12:17 AM

donkuchi19

Posts: 1062
Joined: 3/14/2004
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

I pretty much agree with Regeurk. Diplomacy isn't luck. Diplomacy is what it is. The ability to get others to do what you want. Can you convince them to do it. It may be luck in a PBEM game where some players may have different strategies they associate. That would be luck. If you are playing with an established group though, it is more can I trust this person or not. You have your reputation and are either trusted or not to do what you say.

(in reply to Regeurk)

Post #: 7

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/25/2005 4:33:39 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

Yes you can control SOME of the diplomacy but still it is mostly up to luck imho. In one game I found myself as France and was deciding who to ram my weight into first. As Fate/Luck/Skill would have it, I made up my mind to crush either Prussia or Austria first. Well as fate would have it, Prussia and Austria allied right off the bat. Not good luck for me, but perhaps no luck at all as this is pretty standard for seasoned players.

I decided I would first go after Austria, in essence, this was quite some BAD luck for him. Maybe I wouldn�t call it luck from my viewpoint, as I chose him for some specific reasons, having a weaker army than Prussia to start out with, and having too many others close to him to watch out for all at once.

Knowing I had a problem with his alliance with Prussia (and who knows who else may want to join their side), I slammed my fists down on the table and gave everyone a long and harsh speech. I let everyone know that I was going to declare war on SOMEONE, and it would be just my war against that SOMEONE. And if anyone else allied or not to that SOMEONE comes to his rescue, then my GOD would I be pissed and do everything in my power to crush the first opponent to stick his nose in MY private war. I then basically repeated this again while I leaned forward and glared over at the Prussian player sitting next to the Austrian. Again, I smiled evilly and showed my teeth as I reminded him I would not hesitate for a moment to wrap my units around and head straight into the first ally to wipe him out, even if it meant the death of me. And they all knew it.

Well, perhaps it is no surprise then, after I declared war on Austria, that scared Prussian character broke his alliance when called on and took the loss in PP to save his army for another day. Yes, it was a bad move, for both of them.

Now, was that LUCK, or diplomacy skill? I don�t know, bit of both perhaps? Maybe I was LUCKY that the Prussian player was such a chicken-**** and fled the fields to live another day. From the Austrian player�s side of things, no doubt he felt as though he was getting just all the BAD LUCK right from the get-go.

After I stomped down Austria with my boots, I was totally free to turn my army north-west and crush Prussia while he was alone. Nope, I didn�t do it, saved that for later. Instead I pounced on Russia who had recently decided (like a typical Russian) to jump into my war and gain a bunch of cheap freebies from Spain�s surrender to the both of us. Why should march all that way into Russia later on when he had a huge army there, waiting for me to hit anyway?

You could call that LUCK for Prussia. Had Russia not stuck her nose into the situation and made herself a target too, I would have possibly got bored and smashed Prussia instead. He lasted quite a while that game, I am sure not all these factors was due to his skill.

Of course I have been on the sucky end of things too. Like the time I was Prussia, and my Austrian partner (well I thought he was supposed to be!) decides he will declare war on me right from day one! I was even worse shocked than France, who couldn�t believe his eyes that his two rivals were attacking each other! One has to ask, where was the skill in that? Or was it just bad LUCK I had some kind of newbie? LOL He had figured that since I was closest it would be a FUN thing to do?

We can break the diplomacy level down into other groups. E.G. diplomatic actions on minors. You can sometimes guess what and how people are going to manipulate. Sometimes you declare war on a minor and some else wants the same one. You are playing a guessing game often and conflicts arise when sometimes nations clash over simple minor diplomatic events. I would say luck has a part in this. Anything that involves guessing has an element of risk/luck to it. Sometimes just having a certain minor in your influence box can mean the life or death of a player.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to donkuchi19)

Post #: 8

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/25/2005 4:53:53 AM

Marc von Martial

Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

4. Dice

Dice is allways luck, wheter you see the dice (after it rolls from your hand) or you see it not (like in some games formulas

)

< Message edited by Marc Schwanebeck -- 3/25/2005 4:58:11 AM >

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 9

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/25/2005 10:36:17 AM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

The advantage of a computer game is that you can hide the luck element sometimes, and you can skew it or shape the distribution with more flexibility than just having dice.

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Marc von Martial)

Post #: 10

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/25/2005 11:34:09 AM

I�aki Harrizabalagatar

Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

I like games with low random factor, for instance in CoG we have plenty of factors that influence unit performances, I would have only a small random added to that, I hate games in which you plan a good strategy that is ruined by dice rolls. I think good games should always reward good play.

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)

Post #: 11

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/28/2005 5:47:49 PM

Bluestew0

Posts: 40
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: I�aki Harrizabalagatar

I hate games in which you plan a good strategy that is ruined by dice rolls. I think good games should always reward good play.

I am firmly in agreement with you. Unfortunately, I think the majority of gamers like the random factors more than being rewarded for good play. Perhaps it is to compensate for poor ability or just so one can blame the dice whenever one loses. When I am beaten in a game by a more talented opponent, it makes me more determined to play again and better my performance. If the dice beat me, I have little incentive.

(in reply to I�aki Harrizabalagatar)

Post #: 12

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/28/2005 9:45:35 PM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

To get back to the original question, I have played just the boardgame version of EiA and the beta version of CoG, but I would say that the main differences between them are that EiA remains focused on the strategic level in order to keep the player decision-making focused on relations with the other players. It did not have and did not need a strong economic model because it was primarily oriented towards the diplomatic and military sides of things.

CoG is more of an "empire builder" in that you are focused not just on raising the army, but on developing the infrastructure to support the army, and on the non-military paths towards victory. In CoG, you actually are still busy with lots of decisions to make even when not at war. How much this "inward looking" national leadership concept will affect the speed of the multiplayer experience remains to be seen.

I would argue that they are really not competing designs, especially for those desiring to play as a lessor power (say, the OE) versus the computer. In EiA, the game would probably be pretty much a spectator sport, without a lot of decisions to be made. In CoG,it would not, as you would be feverishly building up the domestic economy, culture, and national morale in preparation for the wars of the future. On the other hand, I would be willing to bet that more EiA multiplayer full campaigns get played, because there are fewer turns and fewer decisions per turn - it is almost as though EiA were designed to be played multiplayer!

(in reply to Bluestew0)

Post #: 13

RE: Crown of Glory v. Empire in Arms - 3/28/2005 10:40:26 PM

ioticus

Posts: 187
Joined: 6/13/2004
Status: offline

Games with no luck (like chess) are boring. I would also argue they are less realistic for wargames, since chance always plays a role in the chaos of war.

(in reply to grumbler)

Post #: 14