Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List

 
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 >> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 8/31/2005 1:11:36 AM   
Hoplosternum


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

I agree that the initial game status does not encourage the two to fight and an alliance between the two, or even neutrality where they both trade can be lucrative and offer opportunities to both. I very much like the rule that inhibits this.

But it's not much of a hinderance as it can be easily house ruled. Unlike Force March, New political combinations etc. etc.

As for the wording of the rules it's a while since I played so you may be correct that as France I have to pick those first (as opposed to simply picking them). In the example I gave it never came up as the peace treaty was decided on before the war began.

Also if playing ANY power that invades the UK I would always land in Wales or Scotland so that I could take one. Once ashore England is lost so there is no need to hit London immeadiately. England does not have the land army in England (early on anyway) and her provinces are so high forage values movement without depots is not too bad. Taking Wales or Scotland as Spain or Russia allows you to blackmail England and / or sell it later at a high price. You can always give France free access for the 'free' joint Unconditional you will get from England.

This is why I agree with Pippin that England surrenders BEFORE this can occur. If England allows any power to take Wales or Scotland her game and because she is so key probably the game in general is over.

(in reply to Barbu)
Post #: 31
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 8/31/2005 2:14:59 AM   
Pippin


Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline 		Even if you enforced a rule where England and France had to be at war and stay there, this does not change much. I've seen too many times with this house rule, where Britan and France just PRETEND they are going to attack each other, but never do. You can't stop those two players from agreeing to not touch each other even though they are supposed to technicaly be at war. You also can not stop Britain or France from trying to help each other out as best they can, despite the tables shows them at war.

What is next? A new rule to ensure that x amount of british factors and x amount of french factors must be lost in a battle between them by such & such a date, or they both counterfiet the game? Do it and I am sure another method for exploiting this will be devised. If Britain and France realy want to be allies there is nothing much you can do about it. But does it matter? It does not benefit Britain as much as people fear. If it did, you would see this a lot more.


The rest of the players end up fooling themselves.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Hoplosternum)
Post #: 32
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 8/31/2005 8:35:38 AM   
Pippin


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

Well I think the wise French player would take Scotland or Wales in the first war. Then land 3 or 4 Corps on the 17 month of enforced peace and have his fleets tucked up in port for the (short) time it takes Nappy to take London and end the second war Rinse and repeat


I like to keep a loaded corps or two sitting on Lille. As soon as someone takes control of the channel I simply walk across and land right inside London. With the poor corps Britain starts out with, there is very little chance she can do much.

One thing I love to do when playing vs the same British player in the next game, is to park two corps on Lille, but only have one factor in each. The British player will think for sure you are planning a repeat invasion as the previous game, and will bottle himself up in a pure defensive mode. For the entire length of that game, those 2 factors will pin down the entire Royal navy in the channel. Not only do you gain this bonus, but your back door is protected by a cheap bluff, while all your real factor power is being used in battles on the other side of France.




_____________________________

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

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 33
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 8/31/2005 9:05:12 AM   
Barbu

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

One thing I love to do when playing vs the same British player in the next game, is to park two corps on Lille, but only have one factor in each. The British player will think for sure you are planning a repeat invasion as the previous game, and will bottle himself up in a pure defensive mode. For the entire length of that game, those 2 factors will pin down the entire Royal navy in the channel. Not only do you gain this bonus, but your back door is protected by a cheap bluff, while all your real factor power is being used in battles on the other side of France.



Ah! I had this done to me once - as Prussia though. We (me and Austria) were under the impression that substantial french troops were tied down in France and got a rude awakening when the entire french army bowled into us.

I borrowed the trick in another game when playing France and the bluff payed off for a few months with the germans grossly underestimating the amounf of troops I had facing them. I had terrible luck in battle unfortunately and couldn't take advantage of the confusion on the other side. They started tracking down my corps strength and then realized there couldn't be that many factors in the corps I left in France.

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 34
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 8/31/2005 7:58:08 PM   
anacrion

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline 		Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 35
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 8/31/2005 10:05:13 PM   
AdmiralN


Posts: 9
Joined: 8/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anacrion

Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion




I agree with you; I think it would be be better to focus on EiA core - standard and optional - rules first.
EiH might come out in future as a mod, as a scenario in a further patch, or whatever (I suspect that many people would appreciate a 1792 scenario as well ).
But first developers should try to fix EiA rules.

I'm not saying that I'm not going to play with different rules, it always happens when you play EiA by mail with different people from all over the world; still it would be better to have the opportunity to set the rules you prefer.

Rules like the no-naval-pursuit and so on will affect the game, no doubt, but it's just a matter of getting used to them.



_____________________________

I have only one eye, I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really did not see the signal!

Admiral Horatio Nelson

(in reply to anacrion)
Post #: 36
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/1/2005 5:31:12 AM   
Ralegh


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

some key features of this game are not implemented


We (the players) want optionals to be optional. And want a pretty UI that is user friendly and no bugs and great doco and a challenging AI and a cheap price. We want it all, and want it now! Me too! But without Bill Gates becoming an EIA fanatic and generously making a significant contribution, it aint gonna be like that.

In the real world, I am trying to get the potential user community (all of you) to contribute to the prioritisation advice to the developers. [I am already making my voice heard - I wanted to get the rest of you to do so too!]

So IF some of the missing rules were to be implemented before other missing rules, which ones would you NEED to get your group buying (and playing) the game?

BTW - the little bit of EIH rules that are in are already programmed, so there is no time saving in leaving them out. In fact, it would take time to remove them and test the replacement rules.

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to anacrion)
Post #: 37
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/1/2005 11:15:53 AM   
John Umber

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		My little thoughts...

Force march are sometimes used to trick the enemy. It is a good rule that I like to launch a major attack with the french - combined with the double move it usually concentrates the forces and destroy some major enemy stack with minor losses. It can be very dangerous to the Prussian little town called Berlin.
But the game is not a waste without it. I like to see it in Patch 1.1.

New Kingdoms, this is VERY important to the french who wish to invade Russia. Without the manpower from Conf. Rhine it lacks the punch needed to control the flanks. Prussia and Austria will be trigger-happy... All the corps and extra manpower from corp-free countries are to important.
It must be included in patch 1.1, if not in the original game.

The rest are optional, but very funny if used.

Please make sure they stay OPTIONAL though, some people hate to have their generals killed every so often. They are never replaced by other famous generals later in the game...



_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 38
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/1/2005 4:51:44 PM   
Daniel Jax

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 6/24/2005
Status: offline 		Well people here's my thoughts.


Rules not implemented
1. Forced march

This is an important one. Due to the forage losses it inevitably causes it is only used in emergency but when it’s needed, it’s needed (the French double move for instance). Would like to see this one if not in the first release then at least in v 1.1

2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)

Not a real big, can live with it as it is set up.

3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

Mmmm. In the case where, say, the English fleet is defeated by the French (+ allies) in preparation for an invasion it will now be impossible for the anti-British forces to bottle up the Brit fleet with a blockade. But the Brits always had the option of retreating to a sea area if they preferred… Changes things but I don’t think it greatly unbalances the game, will just require an adjustment of the strategies used. It does mean that a Brit fleet is very unlikely to ever be caught in port and destroyed if the city is taken. All in all I’d say it advantages the Brits. But see No. 7 below.

No problem with it as it stands.

4. Besieged port city supply

Makes Istanbul more vulnerable now as they won’t be able to sea supply from across the Hellespont when besieged. Also means the Brits will have to be careful about where they land forces on the mainland. Without besieged supply they’ll be more vulnerable. Spanish suffer as well in the case of relying on British sea supply in the face of the French. (although it seems this is not possible without lending forces to another player, see 29 below).

But all up I’d say can wait for the v 1.1 on this one too.

5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)

not a biggy but would still be nice to have at some point.

6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

Means that good corps have to be left behind for sieges. That, or minor corps can be left for long sieges. Again not a biggy but a bit of a nuisance for those who tend to use a lot of minor corps (eg: France)

Wait for the patch

7. British change to VPs

I believe some people asked what the situation was in the case of no outright winner. It depends on this. Without a British default victory this is not a big thing, with it: well, if I was a regular Brit player I’d be pissed. But I like playing the Turks and Spanish

8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]

Well if the game facilitates putting the bids in then no problem whatsoever. Just do the bidding by email (or FtF or whatever) before the game and then go for it. Might want to include the rules for bidding in the game manual though as the amount of VPs paid for a country can be a major factor in determining the winner.

9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)

Grand Campaign is enough to start with. Obviously everyone will want more scenarios available eventually. But if you want a shorter scenario play for fewer years and work out the winner on percentages.


10. Scuttling of ships

I assume that it can still be done as a peace term and that this only refers to voluntary scuttling. Have never seen it happen. Not a problem.

11. Demobilizing

As 10 above.

12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

Bit messy and I can see that it will be open to abuses (supposed ‘neutral’ garrisons in towns stopping a 3rd party from gaining entry)

Might be better in the original. Just make 'em vanish and re-appear in the capital. Not realistic but hey, it's a game.


Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion

This optional rule always disadvantaged the Prussians and we’ve always played without it.

14. Large fleets

So large fleets can move up to a full 7 areas. Advantages those with large fleets. The Brits basically. Makes up for some of their losses.

15. Limited supply

This is an important one, would like to see it in the original release. Without it it makes poorer nations more able to supply big stacks & supply lines less vulnerable.

16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]

Disadvantages the French a bit (can be nice to get that extra Political Status in peace times) but I assume that the minors’ corps/fleets will still be available. Not a big one but definitely one of those for the v1.1 as it adds historic flavour.

17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms

Open to abuse as has been pointed out. Gentleman’s agreements can prevent this of course. So wait for the patch, meanwhile play nice.

18. Peace treaty limited access

can’t remember the exact effects of this rule, therefore no informed opinion. Unless: is this the one where (without it) your corps will merely be teleported back to the captial on an enemy surrender? If so would like to see it in the game (where possible more realism is better). If I've got it completely wrong please ignore me.

19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)

Can't remember: does this mean only allies can enter your territory? If so fine. If not also fine. Does that sound ambivalent?

20. American trade restriction

Well the Brits are getting hammered here (see 4 and 7 as well) but 3 and 14 make up for it a lot. Of course this one is a two edged sword and can (if unlucky) hurt the brits more than their enemies.

21. Naval raiding

Rare that anyone ever has hostile fleets next to GB in an economic turn (or any other turn). Never miss it.

22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses

Well if not proportional how ARE losses apportioned? If decided by the players then a gentleman’s agreement can put this one in place anyway. If randomly assigned then it will work out close enough anyway. In either case not a game breaker.

24. Balance of Power peace restrictions

I prefer to play without this one anyway.

25. Change of Dominance status

Very hard to pull this off in any case so not an immediate necessity. Would definitely like to see it in the patch though. It’s one of things you can aim for.

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.

26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)

Sounds like the best option for PBEM in any case so I’m for AI placement. Also since their Insurrectionists (ie: local rebels) it makes sense for them not to be controlled initially by the central gov’t. Not so happy about expanded area though. The poor old Turks are really getting hammered by all this.

27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)

Much like the above. Some automation is necessary for playability. Go for it.

28. All retreats are conducted by the AI

Ditto.

29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.

Not good. When it comes time for allies to pile on the big guys it means that one or more players will basically be handing their turns/armies over to another player. Not much fun. Especially in the classic case of Spain/Britain vs. the French where the Spanish must rely on the Brits for pretty much everything (such as supply). The Brits will basically be running Spain. Meanwhile the Spanish player can go to bed.

30. Access through the Dardenelles

Would have to think about this one. It sounds like it will make Istanbul more vulnerable. Will also give the Russians a more open hand in the Med. But not a major one wait for the patch.

31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)

Who’d convert expensive Cav and Guard to Inf in any case? Don't need it.

32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport

Doesn’t sound like anything major without the EiH naval combat. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

33. Privateers and privateer defence

Not sure about this one either way. Would have to see it in action.

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 39
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/1/2005 6:08:07 PM   
anacrion

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline 		Ralegh mailed me to post some MNIs (most needed implementations), so here they come:

1) force marches are most important for quick maneuvering (esp. the french during double movement).

2) besieged port city supply ... without this rule istanbul and gibraltar become most vulnerable

3) Limited supply: anything that can be done to avoid monster stacks needs to be ... and we know of the fate of Napoleon's monster stack in
Russia

4) new political combinations: necessary ... i mean .. this is 'the napoleonic wars' .... together with
5) dominance change they are not that decisive in the long run, since they either do not happen very often or do not change the balance of
power that much, but: these are the things we normally aim to reach, yet rarely achieve due to the wits of our fellow players, if they
happen, they are highpoints of the game, something to be remembered ...

6) Combined move ... hmm. hairy to implement, I suppose. But it should be done for the sake of being able to control one's armies oneself.

7) British VP Change: Well ... this sort of obstructs the british policy of just seeing to nobody getting too strong. I always saw this
rule as the british power offsetting some of the reduced power's strength. Will end games quicker. Should be implemented.


One thing at last: as someone who programs a lot myself, I think that many of the non-implemented rules should not be that hard to implement, just one more dialog or button to give the player the option to actually commit/change an action (British VP Change, Force March, Scuttling, Demobilizing, Militia Conversion, Large fleets, ....)

Is the non-implementation of many rules more a question of finding an AI to deal with those rules? Because otherwise I do not really understand, why they are not in the game as of yet..

As my previous post details, I think that _ALL_ the standard rules should be implemented and everything a player can decide should be left to him unless he decides to leave the decision to the AI.

Anacrion


(in reply to Daniel Jax)
Post #: 40
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/1/2005 10:47:22 PM   
Jordan

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		In any game like this (COG included), if you want historical rivals to act as such then you can artificially hard code a "must be at war" rule or you can make the scoring system such that it incents the player controlling that nation to oppose its rival. The more Napoleonic France gains in power, influence and prestige the more Britain should lose. Most games don't offer both sides of the coin, they only offer the incentive of your rival gaining power, not a correlation between their points gained and yours lost.

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 41
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/2/2005 11:21:16 PM   
9thlegere


Posts: 39
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		The rule that about France and GB at war is not a big deal. Anyone setting up a game can just insist that they declare war at the start if this is vital for some people.

Otherwise, don't see the problem.

I just want to play the game first then I will begin to think about what should be in and so on........

(in reply to Jordan)
Post #: 42
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/3/2005 3:21:27 AM   
StCyr

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline 		well, isn´t it funny ? "The game is done when it´s done", how often could we read this ?
And how often was the reaction " it´s ok, just take the time you need, we just want the game as good as possible " ?
And what do we get now ?

Ok, it is not funny, sorry.

< Message edited by StCyr -- 9/3/2005 3:23:48 AM >

(in reply to 9thlegere)
Post #: 43
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/3/2005 3:56:07 AM   
Ralegh


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

ORIGINAL: Daniel Jax
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses

Well if not proportional how ARE losses apportioned? If decided by the players then a gentleman’s agreement can put this one in place anyway. If randomly assigned then it will work out close enough anyway. In either case not a game breaker.


The player decides (within some rules constraiunts, like not taking militia once morale damage exceeds 2). Every battle is by definition between only two players - a player fights with his own forces and any allied forces that are on loan to him in that turn. I am not sure if allied units in the same area help defend if not on loan - I will test for it.

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Daniel Jax)
Post #: 44
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/3/2005 4:07:40 AM   
Ralegh


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

ORIGINAL: JRichert
Retreats conducted by AI - This seems strange, couldn't a text window be opened to ask the player which way he would like to retreat?

The combined movement option is not a good solution. One of the perils of combined movement was movement order. If you used combined movement, you might move after your opponent. This way, that could be circumvented by giving the corps on loan to the player that moves first in the order.


a) Having PBEM means having to make some compromises to cut down on tooing and froing. I suppose the issue is that what retreat options are open to you can be effected by the order in which the attacker chooses to resolve the battles.

b) You are right about the ramification - allies "straddling" their opponent could move in the second allies turn one month and the first allies turn the second month, getting a flipflop (the traditional French two-moves in a row). But what's a better alternative that can work *simply* in PBEM?

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to JRichert)
Post #: 45
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/3/2005 4:16:38 AM   
Ralegh


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

ORIGINAL: marc420
When you talk about v1, does this mean some of these might be added later in a patch? Or is this going to be the usual idea of making everyone pay full price for another game to eventually see these features?

Maybe I've been burned too many times, but I'm getting tired of paying full price for a game missing features, then being told I have to pay full price a second time to get those features.

I like the idea of a EiA game, but I'm learning the smart move is to completely ignore the first and maybe the second release of a game system and wait for the full game to eventually be developed.


Marc, I am a tester, not the design company, so I can't make you promises.

However, many Matrix Games involve significant new features through the patch process (ie. for free) before a really major change makes it a new version (it. that you have to pay for). This is one of the reasons I am helping Matrix - beta testing continues after the product goes live, now testing the patches etc as the product continues to grow and mature.

In COG, for example, I am currently testing the second patch, which changes some game dynamics significantly as well as adding about a dozen minor features, and fixing quite a few bugs. One of the changes is something I had thought would have to wait for a new version because of the work involved - but the devs felt it important enough to put in the effort. [revamping waste to work at the province level]

It would be my expectation that EIANW will continue to add features through patches - part of the reason for this thread is gaining advice from the player community about the relative importance of different features, so they do as many of the more important ones as possible sooner rather than later. That said, you are right that there might be particular features you would be asked to pay for in an expansion pack or new version. I suppose if you are happy to wait until a product is a few years old, you can wait it out. I am the opposite: I like trying to play with a beta (or even alpha) product!

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to marc420)
Post #: 46
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/4/2005 12:07:15 AM   
Hoche


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		Here are my thoughts

Rules not implemented
1. Forced march

Not a major deal as players rarely force march. But why not in original release?

2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)

I can live with this. I think I might prefer it to the current boardgame rule.

3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

I am not a big fan of this rule as it leads to abuse. Invasions can be stopped by a 1 ship fleet. A single 1 ship fleet can intercept a larger fleet carrying several corps. If the invasion fleet wins it still has to stop its movement. And what happens to the corps if the invaders win a battle in a SZ that doesn't touch land?!?!? This seem to be a big mistake.

4. Besieged port city supply

Another big mistake. Gibralter and Istanbul are now more vulnerable. And I don't see the reason for this rule omission.

5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)

Not a big mistake but I don't see thee reason for the rule omission. Just change some of the rules governing it to make it more playable. I can live with out it.

6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

Hurts France and I don't see the reason for this either. What the problem with letting minor assualt cities?

7. British change to VPs

Bad for anglophiles

8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]

oh well.

9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)

expected

10. Scuttling of ships

Not big but why not in original release?

11. Demobilizing

Not big but why not in original release?

12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

could lead to abuse.

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion

Good for Prussia bad for everyone else. I can live with this one.

14. Large fleets

Major help bonus to Naval powers. I really like limited movement for large fleets

15. Limited supply

Monster stacks will rule

16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]

Bad for France, and they will be missed

17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms

Could lead to abuse

18. Peace treaty limited access

probably a good idea

19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)

I don't like the opition but some will.

20. American trade restriction

not a big loss

21. Naval raiding

I have never seen this happen.

22. Proportional naval losses

Why not?!?!? It's one of the reason for put this game on the PC because calulating proportional losses was a pain in the rear.

23. Proportional land losses

Why not?!?!? It's one of the reason for put this game on the PC because calulating proportional losses was a pain in the rear.

24. Balance of Power peace restrictions

Fine but some player like this rule.

25. Change of Dominance status

Does't happen often but it does shape diplomacy in the game making it more interesting.

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)

I'm not a big fan but it is fine for PBEM

27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)

fine

28. All retreats are conducted by the AI

I'm worried

29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.

I'm concerned but I will hold my opion until I see how it works.

30. Access through the Dardenelles

Why not?

31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)

Not a big deal it rarely happens


To be honest these changes seriously concern me. I hope the will be resolved with patches later.

Many of the changes seem to be due to facilitate PBEM play. What about solo and hot-seat play? Retreats and Insurrection Corps place ment could be contolled by the human player.


_____________________________

It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 47
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/4/2005 2:12:19 AM   
Ralegh


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

3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

I am not a big fan of this rule as it leads to abuse. Invasions can be stopped by a 1 ship fleet. A single 1 ship fleet can intercept a larger fleet carrying several corps. If the invasion fleet wins it still has to stop its movement. And what happens to the corps if the invaders win a battle in a SZ that doesn't touch land?!?!? This seem to be a big mistake.


Sorry - my bad description of the limitations of the rule change. After an intercpetion combat, if the phasing player wins, then (a) the game retreats the loser and (b) the phasing player's movement continues.

quote:

6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

I was too terse describing this one too. You know how forces inside a beseiged city can attack back, using the 5-1 and 5-2 tables? In v1, the intention is that only a major power could launch such an attack (that includes minors you own, but not free states that are merely under your control). AFAICS, this is a pretty small thing.

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Hoche)
Post #: 48
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/4/2005 3:26:14 AM   
Hoche


Posts: 491
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

quote:

3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)

I am not a big fan of this rule as it leads to abuse. Invasions can be stopped by a 1 ship fleet. A single 1 ship fleet can intercept a larger fleet carrying several corps. If the invasion fleet wins it still has to stop its movement. And what happens to the corps if the invaders win a battle in a SZ that doesn't touch land?!?!? This seem to be a big mistake.


Sorry - my bad description of the limitations of the rule change. After an intercpetion combat, if the phasing player wins, then (a) the game retreats the loser and (b) the phasing player's movement continues.

quote:

6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)

I was too terse describing this one too. You know how forces inside a beseiged city can attack back, using the 5-1 and 5-2 tables? In v1, the intention is that only a major power could launch such an attack (that includes minors you own, but not free states that are merely under your control). AFAICS, this is a pretty small thing.


Thank you for the clarification. That is much better than what I thought. Also don't take my disappointment in rules left out personal. I appreciate the heads up and realize your are the messenger. Just in general I wish most of those rules were in version 1.

_____________________________

It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 49
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/9/2005 6:55:17 AM   
Pippin


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

10. Scuttling of ships

I assume that it can still be done as a peace term and that this only refers to voluntary scuttling. Have never seen it happen. Not a problem.


IIRC scuttling was just a rules variation in the original release. It does not benefit a player to scuttle as he still loses points. However it does prevent one's opponent from gaining extra points by winning the attack.

On the other side of the coin, you will not inflict casualties on your enemy while watches as you lose it all.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Hoche)
Post #: 50
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/9/2005 4:42:37 PM   
alar1c

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/9/2005
From: Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barbu


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:


17. Britain-France Surrender terms: Without this, the two can make an easy peace, ally, and completely dominate the game. A potential, even probable, game unbalancer.


With out the ability to subtract PP, I don't see many British players allying with France. The big bad monster will just turn into an even bigger monster and there will be nothing Britain can do to stop it after she realizes that mistake.




Disagree there. It's far easier to bring down France than to bring down GB. There's nothing that France can do to make herself impervious from a world coalition. The same isn't true from GB. If, while allied with France, GB manages to sink either the spanish or the russian fleet, good luck bringing the british down.




Hi all

First off, I just found this site and forum and am VERY excited about EiA as a computer game.

To the above, GB not at war is a nightmare for the rest of the world!!!
GB can pick a spot, either Spain or Russia and land and destroy their fleets at will.
Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.
No, IMO, GB and France should never be at peace, for the sake of the whole world.

One other question(this may be the wrong place to ask but..) does anyone know where I can buy a copy of the game?

Thanks
Al

(in reply to Barbu)
Post #: 51
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/9/2005 5:21:15 PM   
Pippin


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

Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.


I know a lot of people fear Britain taking over that stretch of territory. However every time I've seen Britain try she tends to get pounced on hard somewhere along the line...


_____________________________

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

(in reply to alar1c)
Post #: 52
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/9/2005 5:51:13 PM   
alar1c

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/9/2005
From: Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.


I know a lot of people fear Britain taking over that stretch of territory. However every time I've seen Britain try she tends to get pounced on hard somewhere along the line...


quote:

before a really major change makes it a new version (it. that you have to pay for). This is one


True, but I tend towards that move as a mid to late game move once GB has control of the seas and can send 30-60 ships in 2 to 3 fleets into the area, with no to little fear for britain itself. One british corp and the eygptians can make a fun fight of it with the Turks.

but as with all things in this game (at least the board version) everything depends on everything else.
Al

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 53
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/9/2005 10:15:20 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anacrion

Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion




I agree with you; I think it would be be better to focus on EiA core - standard and optional - rules first. And, I should say that I feel quite depress that so much basic rules and standard optional are left. I was waiting for a strict and complete adaptation of the game to computer. Now I feel deceive once more...


(in reply to AdmiralN)
Post #: 54
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/10/2005 11:41:20 PM   
good4fw

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have been watching the EIA forums for a while, and I am looking forward to the game's release.

I wanted to put in my own two cents about the deviation list for the sake of the developers.

In my opinion, Matrix Games must include two rules in V1 of EIA that are currently out:
British change to VPs
Beseiged port city supply

The first colors the whole game. It is such a powerful tool by which GB can hold back any nation that pulls out in front of the others. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are 44 seasonal inter-phases where VPs are accounted; which means, in turn, that GB has the power to take 88 VPs from any nation or combination of nations no matter what happens on the map. How many games do you think that will affect? I believe this tool is an integral part of GB's power and that the game would not be the same without it.

On the second rule, I am not sure what the game will allow as it is now and what is being left out. It seems like there is no provision for a port city to receive supply through the sea when it is beseiged. I believe this can make a world of difference, not only to sea-faring nations, but also to the Germans. I think eliminating sea supply will take a lifeline out of Britain's hands, and to a lesser extent Spain, Turkey, and Russia. I think the game will be particularly affected in the Mediterranean as the Spanish, Turks, and British battle for minors throughout the game. Shouldn't the British fleet be able to keep, for example, Portuguese ports supplied in the face of a Spanish seige? And doesn't this increase the importance of naval dominance?

got to run

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 55
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/11/2005 4:29:37 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak



quote:

ORIGINAL: anacrion

Regarding the rules ... (back to the roots)

I believe that the standard ruleset should be implemented as should the optional ruleset. While I can live with only the Grand Campaign implemented as of yet I would want to be able to play other, shorter scenarios in the future ... not everybody has an excess of spare time.

Instead of working on fancy EiH rules, e.g. on frigates, privateers and the like, I think the basic EiA game should be implemented so those willing to play EiA can play it without restrictions. Many of the non-implemented rules have a particular purpose and abandoning them will mean a restriction on the players' tactical and strategic possibilities in certain situations. (Some of those implications were discussed earlier in this thread)

I am -7 copies (as of now) disappointed that some key features of this game are not implemented and I therefore cannot use it to support/host future games, since we are playing with all standard and optional rules and I do not see a valid reason to abandon any of them.

Anacrion




I agree with you; I think it would be be better to focus on EiA core - standard and optional - rules first. And, I should say that I feel quite depress that so much basic rules and standard optional are left. I was waiting for a strict and complete adaptation of the game to computer. Now I feel deceive once more...




There are a lot of people who feel this way, but I don't think it's going to happen in the initial release (or if even that is ever going to happen). I AM however seriously hoping that if I keep paying attention to what they are doing (and not abandon this game company entirely) they will eventually get around to implementing Empires in Arms and not some Napoleonic quasi-pseudo game similar somewhat to Empires in Arms that just happens to have the name Empires in Arms as the title.

Here's looking to that day!!

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 56
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/11/2005 4:34:25 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

quote:

Also all fleet countries will be there's. Also Turkey is toast in this scenerio. GB will controll all of North Africa from Eygpt back.


I know a lot of people fear Britain taking over that stretch of territory. However every time I've seen Britain try she tends to get pounced on hard somewhere along the line...



I never try to (as GB) to keep and hold North Africa, I just feel that it reallys stretches you pretty thin and it gets annoying for me to deal with when my attention should be diverted to other, more important regions. It is important to keep an eye on it, and I usually try and hold Algeria and one or two others.

However, I have played very few games where the France vs. GB (at war since beginning) was not implemented. All the gamers that I have played with always felt this was a good thing.

ps Pippin, I noticed in a post you made a comment about people who have only played the game a few times and it looked as though it was directed toward me. I have played several versions (EiA Campaign with different optional rules, Revolutionary Campaign, EiH rules implemented, scenarios, etc...) of EiA. I have played well over 100 games of EiA. I guess if you think that's "just a few times", well then, you got me.

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 57
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/12/2005 3:44:53 AM   
JavaJoe


Posts: 546
Joined: 9/12/2005
Status: offline 		1. Force march - It's important.
2. Defender retirement - In or out on your turn is ok
3. Naval Pursuit - If you mean the loser MUST move to a port after a loss I disagree. You must be able to decide to retreat to an adjacent area as well. (although the victor chooses which adjacent area)
4. Besieged port supply - It's important to be able to supply a port under siege.
5. Corps on loand - not a big deal
6. Besieged assault - no big loss (minors)
7. British change VPs - not terrible, this could easiliy be done through player communications.
8. Bidding for countries - np
9. Other Campaigns and scenarios - Is there anything other than the grande campaign? (1792 is ok but don't hold the game up for that)
10. scuttling of ships - to deny the enemy the vps for a lost battle, yes. (can you program a choice? If fleet blockading is larger then attack, if same attack, if larger, scuttle?)
11. demobilizing - Won't lose sleep over it.
12. repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege -

13. Militia conversion - Never play it.
14. Large fleets - ALWAYS play it
15. Limitied supply - ALWAYS play it
16. New political combinations - You limit French growth without it. (KoI when Illyria, Lombardy, Venitia, Romagna band togther they produce $40 16mp, If this option isn't used then Romagna and Illyria can't be doubled the production is then $32 13mp the extra mp is used to flesh out the 2 corps of the KoI and the fleet.) The other combinations have the same effect. You lose the ability to maximize the minors without corps' production.
17. Britain and France at war - Always play it
18 Peace treaty limited access - If you mean the access one country has over another after peace is made to remove garrisons and corps, it's more trouble than it's worth.
19. Allied voluntary access - OK (forced access -1pp per turn omitted?)
20. American trade restriction - Not sure what you mean here, I assume not allowing the peace condition restricting American trade? If so then how can France instigate a war with America and GB? Forcing this option on GB through B.6 is always fun.
21. Naval raiding - not a biggie
22/23. proportional loses naval/land - a must
24. Balance of power - If you want to ensure that all players that start the game will finish then it's important.
25. Change of dominance - important

26. Insurrection corps - tough one, a major asset to the Austrian, being able to pop a corps up at just the right time, but how much programing does it take? Or is this just a PBEM issue that requires a choice by the Austrian for every area the Turk may move into? If it's the latter then let the game slow down. If not then a cunning Turk could use this to his advantage pp wise as well as tactically.
27. Naval interception - Naval orders sound like a solution.
28. All retreats conducted by AI - GOOD! Simple rules for retreat should make this a non issue.
29. No combined move - tough one. I would look into a solution to allow this.
30. access through the dardenelles - Could this be a choice made by the Turk on his turn, He allows access to France but not Russia for the turn on his turn.
31. Cav and guard corps cannot be detached - Noone does this anyway.
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport - This is a EiH thing, if it's not in the EiA game np.
33. Privateers and privateer defence - see above.

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 58
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/13/2005 12:57:53 AM   
Naomi

 

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

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

Hi - I'm Ralegh, and I joined the EIANW testing team a few weeks back. A few of you will know me from the COG forum. I'm an EIA/EIH player and my interest in EIA led me to Matrix, which in turn led me to COG, and my work on the COG beta got me into the EIA beta. Professionally, I'm a Software Architect in Canberra Australia.

To help me do testing, I put together a list of features, and the beta gang helped me understand what was in and what was out for v1 of EIANW. (EIA is a huge game, so they couldn't implement everything in V1.) Here is my Consolidated Deviation List [this is really just the 'major' features - there are a number of other more minor deviations that Marshall is keeping a track of].

I don't think Marshall will consider any of these for v1 - right now we have him beavering away at bugs - but some of this stuff might make it into a patch or a version 2 - I suppose it is up to the player community to provide feedback on the relative importance of different features... This thread would be a good place. In no particular order, and with sequential numbering just to make it easy to refer to things:

Rules not implemented
1. Forced march
2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn)
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.)
4. Besieged port city supply
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term)
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can)
7. British change to VPs
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process]
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1)
10. Scuttling of ships
11. Demobilizing
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion
14. Large fleets
15. Limited supply
16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game]
17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms
18. Peace treaty limited access
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies)
20. American trade restriction
21. Naval raiding
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions
25. Change of Dominance status

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location)
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises)
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply.
30. Access through the Dardenelles
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can)
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport
33. Privateers and privateer defence

Hihi Ral, glad to hear you join as a tester, you've always been up to the job. My humble suggestion is that any of the above characteristics (at least original EIA's, as opposed to players' add-ons) had better not be left out, or the game would come out as an EIA "lite".

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 59
RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List - 9/13/2005 5:39:31 AM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline 		Rules not implemented
1. Forced march - Essential
2. Defender retirement into the city (but you can choose to be in or out in your turn) - Already talked about this a long time ago. No problem if supply line can't be trace above an unbesieged city
3. Naval pursuit (Losers are retreated to a port by the computer. Winners stay in the location of the combat.) - cant't preview all the results, let the testers do the job here
4. Besieged port city supply - another essential
5. Corps on loan (the peace treaty term) - i would have lived with it if this condition wasn't taken to prevent a destruction of an army or navy. That don't leave much peace choice with 18.
6. Besieger assault for minor power (major powers can) - probably much easier to code it that to play without it
7. British change to VPs - Never see it used, only a british threat removed.
8. Bidding for countries [game facilitates adding the final bids in, but not the process] - i don't care if i understand it well
9. Other campaigns and scenarios (only the grand campaign is implemented in v1) - Looking what V1 look like now, it wont matter... However, some scenarios would be useful as tutorial and practice.
10. Scuttling of ships - again, probably much easier to code it that to play without it

11. Demobilizing - don't care currently
12. Repatriating a neutral garrison in a siege - what's the result then?

Optional rules not available in game
13. Militia conversion - this one will greatly be missed. I always remember the vision of those hundred russian factors dissapearing fron the map. Was the sign that the Cossacks are coming.
14. Large fleets - another one changing the game for the worst
15. Limited supply - one more changing the game for the worst

16. New political combinations such as Kingdoms of Italy, Westphalia, Bavaria, Two Sicilies and the Confederation of the Rhine [Poland and the Ottoman Empire ARE in the game] - some chrome removed


17. Britain and France at war, with special surrender terms - Why not give 50 more ship to GB or 100 infantry factor to France...
18. Peace treaty limited access - see 5
19. Allied voluntary access (restricting to only allies) - as asked by someone else, what about forced access
20. American trade restriction - can live with that
21. Naval raiding - same
22. Proportional naval losses
23. Proportional land losses - ARGH again those feudals and minors corps that will take all loses. Honestly it's probably the rule with morale that is the reason for a computer version
24. Balance of Power peace restrictions - would have requiered some interpretation, but this is a NEEDED one.
25. Change of Dominance status - sad choice

Customised/changed rules These are rules whose modifications I judge to be significant - most of them are to permit PBEM without huge hassles, which has the side effect of making hotseat play easier.
26. Insurrection corps placement (done by AI, but made more generous in location) - do you still beleive in Santa ... er IA
27. Naval interceptions (fleets are given orders - intercept weaker, intercept invasion, or intercept all - which they attempt to carry out when the opportunity arises) - need to be more explained.
28. All retreats are conducted by the AI - see 26
29. There is no 'combined move' option - people are supposed to use a 'lend unit to ally' option instead [presumably this allows for allied supply and naval transport, as well as fighting together as a unit]. This is also the only way to use allied depot supply. - i hate the last sentence above all. It can kill the game.
30. Access through the Dardenelles - will please Turkey and Russia sometime
31. Cav and guard in a corps cannot be detached and converted to infantry as a garrison (but factors arriving as reinforcements can) - who care for that little PP
32. Ships exist as heavy, light and transport - Medium is missing
33. Privateers and privateer defence - nothing to say here, whore care

(in reply to Naomi)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: News from the Beta - Deviation List Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

1.609