Empires in Arms remake?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Empires in Arms remake?

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 >> The War Room >> Empires in Arms remake?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Empires in Arms remake? - 7/17/2005 6:25:40 AM

D_Day_Dodger

Posts: 2
Joined: 6/13/2004
Status: offline

I'm thinking about buying this game and would like to know how closely this game resembles Avalon Hill's Empires in Arm? This is the computer remake of the game, right? Do any old Empires in Arms players have any thoughts on this game?

Post #: 1

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 7/17/2005 7:47:55 AM

Balthazar Gerards

Posts: 43
Joined: 7/3/2005
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

This is like asking an Islamic fundementalist whether Christianity is the way to heaven?

_____________________________

(in reply to D_Day_Dodger)

Post #: 2

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 7/17/2005 8:29:27 AM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

I love EIA (and EIH), and can't wait for the computerised version to come out. But this ain't that.

COG has several thing EIA doesn't - a more detailed modelling of economy, building units, creating the capability to build units, improving the capability of units, etc etc etc. It has, for example, the ability to determine how manpower is used in a province to produce textiles or iron, which can then be used to create military units, improve the national morale, or trade to other countries. You can build up the fortifications of a city, or require that a defeated opponent reduce his fortifications.

The detailed battle option is almost a game in itself, allowing tactical control of units at the division level, and a wonderful modelling of the effects of leaders.

COG has 'experts' that can run all the more complex stuff for you while you are learning the game, which is really needed in such a detailed, complex game. But with the experts on, it is even simpler that EIA.

Strategically, the games have a very similiar feel - because they model the same period of history. COG comes with 1792, 1796, 1805 and 1815 starts, though, in addition to a metaphysical 'balanced' option.

On EIA's side, EIA is a mature game - the rules are well understood, and I would expect the bugs to be limited and few. COG is a much more ambitious game, without the benefit of well understood rules - so a few things are still being balanced (for example, while I think the player communitity is now convinced that COG's implementation of artillery is better than their expectations were, I think we have convinced the developers that cavalry should be a even better at breaking enemy formations that it currently is.) On the plus side, COG came out on schedule, and the developers are very active at making enhancements/improvements/etc. It holds a lot of promise for continuing to improve - and as a frequent contributor to this forum, I get a chance to influence that development - COOL!

< Message edited by Ralegh -- 7/17/2005 8:30:17 AM >

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to D_Day_Dodger)

Post #: 3

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 7/17/2005 11:01:52 PM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

I love EIA (and EIH), and can't wait for the computerised version to come out. But this ain't that.

COG has several thing EIA doesn't - a more detailed modelling of economy, building units, creating the capability to build units, improving the capability of units, etc etc etc. It has, for example, the ability to determine how manpower is used in a province to produce textiles or iron, which can then be used to create military units, improve the national morale, or trade to other countries. You can build up the fortifications of a city, or require that a defeated opponent reduce his fortifications.

The detailed battle option is almost a game in itself, allowing tactical control of units at the division level, and a wonderful modelling of the effects of leaders.

COG has 'experts' that can run all the more complex stuff for you while you are learning the game, which is really needed in such a detailed, complex game. But with the experts on, it is even simpler that EIA.

Strategically, the games have a very similiar feel - because they model the same period of history. COG comes with 1792, 1796, 1805 and 1815 starts, though, in addition to a metaphysical 'balanced' option.

On EIA's side, EIA is a mature game - the rules are well understood, and I would expect the bugs to be limited and few. COG is a much more ambitious game, without the benefit of well understood rules - so a few things are still being balanced (for example, while I think the player communitity is now convinced that COG's implementation of artillery is better than their expectations were, I think we have convinced the developers that cavalry should be a even better at breaking enemy formations that it currently is.) On the plus side, COG came out on schedule, and the developers are very active at making enhancements/improvements/etc. It holds a lot of promise for continuing to improve - and as a frequent contributor to this forum, I get a chance to influence that development - COOL!

It is everything I am looking for the most. So far, I have not fully understood and remembered all the rules of CoG (Can I say a well-laid-out manuel is paramountly imperative?), leaving all bugs alone. A good game is not necessarily complex enough to compromise the playability, that's where EIA comes in to have me captured. If you categorise yourself into a strategically thinking type, EIA will more likely satisfy you more.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 4

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 7/18/2005 1:18:31 PM

Hoplosternum

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

I agree with Raleigh. CoG has huge potential and hopefully in time will become a greater game than EiA. It has more depth and options which a computer can easily handle but would kill a boardgame like EiA stone dead.

But unlike EiA it is new and as such may still have some extreme strategies that might work too well and need tweaking. Some troop types, or some mix of production might be too powerful. The balance between the costs and rewards of building powerful/experienced forces compared to cheap/militia types may be wrong. Or some countries may have access to too many easy VPs. These don't matter in Single Player where one country is simply 'easier' to play, but could harm the multiplayer side. We just cannot be sure yet. And of course this being a Matrix game the user Interface is not the most friendly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naomi

It is everything I am looking for the most. So far, I have not fully understood and remembered all the rules of CoG (Can I say a well-laid-out manuel is paramountly imperative?), leaving all bugs alone. A good game is not necessarily complex enough to compromise the playability, that's where EIA comes in to have me captured. If you categorise yourself into a strategically thinking type, EIA will more likely satisfy you more.

I liked EiA and I have high hopes of the Computer game. I expect it will work better 'out of the box' than CoG. Many of us will know the rules well before we begin.

But it is not a game without problems. It has a small band of dedicated fans. But many players have tried it and stopped playing not due to the huge time demands and requirement for 6 other dedicated players but simply because it has some serious play issues.

Losing wars are very bad in EiA. This may sound obvious

but it has unpleasant side effects. Unless you are fairly sure of winning you are better off not fighting. Just surrender straight off. You are likely to get better terms - even if you unconditionally surrender - when there is some doubt rather than lose your army first then negotiate without a card to play (and many VPs down and much weaker afterwards).

The negotiations get horrible and gamey especially after the 'initial war' which is often quite balanced and enjoyable. France (who does well out of winning battles with Napoleon) attacks a weaker power - say Prussia who wants to unconditionally surrender straight off. France threatens Prussia with the three worst demands if she does so - but offers Prussia a Conditional if she will just fight two battles vs. Nappy first�. Only for Britain to counter offer. Don't worry Prussia she says I'll declare war on you too! That way I can grab some of the victory conditions and go easy on Prussia, make other impossible to take etc. It's even a sound tactic to have Britain declare war on certain key anti French stalwarts so that she has been at war with them longer than France so gets first pick of the Victory conditions if things go wrong

It doesn't end there either. There is often a big pile on factor. Turkey is going down to Britain so Russia and Austria dive in at the end so that Turkey surrenders to them too. Even if they get little from the Victory choices it's 18 months enforced peace and some VPs.

Unfortunately the game always has played better solo. Which due to it's size and demands is not necessarily a bad thing

(in reply to Naomi)

Post #: 5

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 7/18/2005 8:41:11 PM

bluemonday

Posts: 233
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

On EIA's side, EIA is a mature game - the rules are well understood, and I would expect the bugs to be limited and few.

I don't see how the maturity of the ruleset would affect the presence or lack of bugs in the game. That's an issue of coding.

(in reply to Ralegh)

Post #: 6

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 7/19/2005 6:15:39 AM

Ralegh

Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
On EIA's side, EIA is a mature game - the rules are well understood, and I would expect the bugs to be limited and few.

I don't see how the maturity of the ruleset would affect the presence or lack of bugs in the game. That's an issue of coding.

I was defining a bug as including a rule that needs tweaking, or an extra rule that is needed, etc. Effectively COG is game design plus programming all at once, while EIA has had game design, and now only needs programming.

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to bluemonday)

Post #: 7

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 7/19/2005 10:16:32 AM

Naomi

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

Losing wars are very bad in EiA. This may sound obvious but it has unpleasant side effects. Unless you are fairly sure of winning you are better off not fighting. Just surrender straight off. You are likely to get better terms - even if you unconditionally surrender - when there is some doubt rather than lose your army first then negotiate without a card to play (and many VPs down and much weaker afterwards).

I somehow share how you feel. EIA is great in focusing you on broad strategy making and, although perhaps not meant to, sharpening your sense of choosing a right time to opt out and lose face on the table instead of going stuck in the mire of fighting a hopeless war. Without much battle-fighting details to bother, players tend naturally (or find it more helpful) to depend more on diplomatic means (sometimes actually simply noises, which make the game playing little more than a talking shop) than less talkative warmongers would like to find attractive.

(in reply to Hoplosternum)

Post #: 8

RE: Empires in Arms remake? - 9/18/2005 3:32:45 AM

pricemc1

Posts: 27
Joined: 9/13/2005
Status: offline

I have to disagree with some others here. To me this game is a blatant remake of EIA's core rules just with all the EIA optional rules also added. The map and units are almost all the same. Of course, COG goes beyond the EIA rules as well but I attribute this more to the fact that the designers recognize this is a computer game, not a board game, and therefore they should take advantage of the elements of play that will be enhanced by gaming on a computer. I think actually Matrix is canibilizing their own market by releasing both this game and the official EIA computer game they are also developing. Regardless though I find COG a great game and worth buying if you like EIA flat out.

Mike

(in reply to D_Day_Dodger)

Post #: 9