Scenarios

Scenarios (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815

Message

Marshall Ellis -> Scenarios (5/8/2007 8:28:21 PM)
Hello all: Realizing that version 1.00 will be an EiA / EiH3.0 blend, what do you guys think about a EiA classic scenario with the same map AND counters as the good old AH Bookcase game itself? What other scnearios would you guys like to see? Thank you

Mardonius -> RE: Scenarios (5/8/2007 8:47:09 PM)
Hello Marshall: Sounds grand to me. Will you have the altered crossing arrows as was in the General? Changes the map dynamics a bit. As for other scenarios, I would love to see a French Revolutionary Scenario. American and/or Persian wars would be an added dynamic and would keep the Brits and Russians on their toes. Rules for improving navies and armies (like the Brits have with the Portuguese and Hannoverians) would be a good thing too. Same for Turks if they had a successful reform military movement. [image]local://upfiles/24637/ED995071D4D24BB3BD98BFC1F39E1C39.jpg[/image]

jardail -> RE: Scenarios (5/8/2007 9:02:08 PM)
hmmmm thought this was going to have the traditional maps and counters. Have I been operating under a misconception? I've not been following details of what's going on with the development of the game, haven't really had time. But if it's not based entirely on EIA, then what is it based on?

Monadman -> RE: Scenarios (5/8/2007 11:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherneck_MT But if it's not based entirely on EIA, then what is it based on? EiANW = EiA with pieces of EiH 3.0 (OOB), EiH 4.0 (Map), and EiH 5.1 (Rules and map), some programming workarounds, and a boatload of deviations. Richard

Michael T -> RE: Scenarios (5/9/2007 12:22:52 AM)
Yes please. And thank you for resuming your updates.

yammahoper -> RE: Scenarios (5/9/2007 3:51:40 AM)
Would love an original EiA game, even with just the grand campaign and no scenarios! But scenarios are great

ktotwf -> RE: Scenarios (5/9/2007 5:46:14 AM)
The scenario I am dying for is the 1813 scenario from the EiA rulebook.

Murat -> RE: Scenarios (5/9/2007 8:18:22 AM)
1792 is my favorite one. 1756 is pretty good too.

ktotwf -> RE: Scenarios (5/9/2007 1:42:58 PM)
1792 - 1805 - 1813 sounds like a pretty good line up, IMHO.

iamspamus -> RE: Scenarios and other stuff to consider adding (5/9/2007 2:55:49 PM)
I, personally, don't mind the map changes, but I can see the draw of having it for EiA afficianados. I prefer the "kitchen sink" approach, ie. throw it all in. A look through the General articles may help. I can see what I have at home. I think that it would be 1792, 1805, 1809, 1812 or 1813. Another thought is adding Sweden as an 8th player. I'm not sure how the combat system will work (ie. do you "pick chits" like the board game), but if so there was an extended combat chart that was put out. Also, there was a naval chart or an expanded naval chart, I forget. I can send this stuff (and other optional rules) to you if you'd like. My email address is iamspamus@yahoo.com. Please put something EIA related into the subject line. Don't know if you'll need or use them, but I can send them to you. Thanks, Jason quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Hello all: Realizing that version 1.00 will be an EiA / EiH3.0 blend, what do you guys think about a EiA classic scenario with the same map AND counters as the good old AH Bookcase game itself? What other scnearios would you guys like to see? Thank you

bOrIuM -> RE: Scenarios (5/9/2007 6:58:24 PM)
Hey Marshall and everyone, According to me, scenarios are more "other wars" like the 1618 (30 years), the 1702 (spanish sucession and norht war), 1740 (austrian sucession), 1756(7 years), 1792(revolution). My group of player did use some online scenarios and make our own research to adapt it to be more realist. So we played 1618, 1740 and 1792 scenarios. It does implicate map, corpse, money (colonies and more), and a lot of rules like the insurrection corp and power of minor powers like Holland was powerfull. This is for me scenarios.. could be great to have a real scenario editor to redo thoses wars with the game. I must admit that the EiANW is more EIHNW for me.. but anyway thats ok and let see WHEN it will be released

Monadman -> RE: Scenarios (5/9/2007 9:21:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bOrIuM I must admit that the EiANW is more EIHNW for me.. but anyway thats ok and let see WHEN it will be released Well, on that note . . . There was talk some time ago, about the placement of Stockholm, Sweden. FYI, here’s how EiANW will have it on the map. A few things to note here: 1. Stockholm’s trade values and harbor defense number are from EiH. 2. In two EiH versions, where Stockholm was moved one area to the north, the Stockholm rural area is clear, and EiANW also has it clear. 3. In two EiH versions, where Stockholm was moved one area to the north, the port city is completely north of the ice line but not in EiANW. 4. In one EiH version, where Stockholm was moved one area to the north, there is a crossing arrow between Abo, Finland and the area north of Stockholm, but EiANW does not have that crossing. One final note: The EiANW map is like no other in existence (EiH or EiA) but none of those maps are the duplicates of each other either. Richard [image]local://upfiles/18990/0540A31E062D49ABB00C6A35C49F6D0C.jpg[/image]

JodiSP -> RE: Scenarios (5/10/2007 12:03:36 AM)
Sorry for my ignorance, as I am only recently discovered Empire in Arms, but what is the difference between EIH and EIA(EIA = Empire in Arms) Jon

iamspamus -> RE: Scenarios (5/10/2007 1:48:07 PM)
In EIA speak, these are campaigns (or grand campaigns). A scenario is a usually shorter duration event, such as Waterloo 1815 or 1812-1815. Just for your info. So, as a campaign, I think that 1792 could work. I have issues with much before and/or after that due to the corps system. Before this time, corps don't really work. After this time, rail lines and "modern" equipment change the function of an army. Hope this helps. Jason quote: ORIGINAL: bOrIuM Hey Marshall and everyone, According to me, scenarios are more "other wars" like the 1618 (30 years), the 1702 (spanish sucession and norht war), 1740 (austrian sucession), 1756(7 years), 1792(revolution). My group of player did use some online scenarios and make our own research to adapt it to be more realist. So we played 1618, 1740 and 1792 scenarios. It does implicate map, corpse, money (colonies and more), and a lot of rules like the insurrection corp and power of minor powers like Holland was powerfull. This is for me scenarios.. could be great to have a real scenario editor to redo thoses wars with the game. I must admit that the EiANW is more EIHNW for me.. but anyway thats ok and let see WHEN it will be released

iamspamus -> RE: Scenarios (5/10/2007 1:51:57 PM)
EIA is the original Australian Design Group then Avalon Hill game. EiH is Empire in Harms, a non-official, non-sold game that expands upon EIA. It was started by Michael Treasure, jeez, about 12ish years ago. It's gone through several iterations. I think that it's on 5.0. It cleans up some stuff and adds alot of extra rules, ie. CHROME! I really like it. Jason quote: ORIGINAL: JodiSP Sorry for my ignorance, as I am only recently discovered Empire in Arms, but what is the difference between EIH and EIA(EIA = Empire in Arms) Jon

YohanTM2 -> RE: Scenarios (5/11/2007 2:20:27 PM)
Be nice to have a classic option for those interested but don't delay the release!

Froonp -> RE: Scenarios (5/11/2007 3:18:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Hello all: Realizing that version 1.00 will be an EiA / EiH3.0 blend, what do you guys think about a EiA classic scenario with the same map AND counters as the good old AH Bookcase game itself? What other scnearios would you guys like to see? Thank you The 1792 scenario (was it published in a General issue ???). Having the "EiA classic scenario with the same map AND counters as the good old AH Bookcase game itself" is a good thing too.

Joisey -> RE: Scenarios (5/11/2007 11:38:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ktotwf 1792 - 1805 - 1813 sounds like a pretty good line up, IMHO. An extended campaign, starting with the 1792 scenario with a pre-Dominant France, is my favorite. Lots more negotiating and diplomacy going on with Poland an unresolved question in the East.

gazfun -> RE: Scenarios (5/12/2007 1:15:23 AM)
Im inclined to agree about a 1792 scenario start, and of course with a few of the old generals, of that time, with a Napoleon coming in, at the appropiate time.

La Provence -> RE: Scenarios (5/12/2007 5:17:40 PM)
Is it possible to create personalized scenarios ? To simulate particular situation....... .....what if ? .......... If it'll be possible, all the scenario will be available !

Windfire -> RE: Scenarios (5/12/2007 6:00:36 PM)
The 1788 campaign from EiH would be interesting.

iamspamus -> RE: Scenarios (5/14/2007 3:27:12 PM)
Don't know about that, as it's beyond my scope, but I do know that when we played EIA, one variant was a "personal" leader. Basically, he could roll from 1-5 for each skill and a 6 on the 4th roll was a cav leader. Trick was he was a "D" leader and could only be used if you showed up that day!!! I remember capturing a British 555* (cav) leader. It was just fun. Sigh Jason quote: ORIGINAL: La Provence Is it possible to create personalized scenarios ? To simulate particular situation....... .....what if ? .......... If it'll be possible, all the scenario will be available !

j-s -> RE: Scenarios (5/15/2007 3:35:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Hello all: Realizing that version 1.00 will be an EiA / EiH3.0 blend, what do you guys think about a EiA classic scenario with the same map AND counters as the good old AH Bookcase game itself? What other scnearios would you guys like to see? Thank you Yes, please Marshall [&o] That's what I'm missing: Just a classic grand scenario with the original AH map, rules and counters. And all AH basic rules with errata and optional rules as a option. I don't need any more scenarios or "updated map" or more shiptypes. Just basic EIA with PBEM option and AI. And just that with all it's problems. I'm ready to pay extra for this! More scenarios (from AH Bookcase) can be added later as updates. If we want add extra scenarios from General (like revolutionary wars 1792), then add that revolutionary wars scenario and a bossibility to play from 1792 to 1815. That's my opinion (and my game group opinion). We are waiting and we like to see game soon... Thank you!

delatbabel -> RE: Scenarios (5/17/2007 7:47:11 PM)
My 2c. Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

iamspamus -> RE: Scenarios (5/18/2007 11:30:54 AM)
I think that it added complexity, yes, but it also fixed some issues, such as GB going to N AF for manpower and other things. Also, many people like "chrome" in games... quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel My 2c. Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

YohanTM2 -> RE: Scenarios (5/20/2007 6:49:32 AM)
Umm, GB got a huge porportion of it manpower from NA, Aus, India right up until WWII so why is this not historical? quote: ORIGINAL: iamspamus I think that it added complexity, yes, but it also fixed some issues, such as GB going to N AF for manpower and other things. Also, many people like "chrome" in games... quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel My 2c. Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

Paper Tiger -> RE: Scenarios (5/20/2007 11:13:25 AM)
Well in 1792 and throughout the napoleonic era GB did not have the manpower in india to ship it back to europe, although Sepoy troops were used in the attacks on Manila and in Southern Africa. Equally Australia had to few people to contribute any manpower and Africa was a very minor part of the available mmanpower. In fact it would have been more accurate to include in the British manpower small amounts from every nation which is trading with GB and from the west indies and the USA up until the revolution. A bonus for every war which takes place on the continent may also be justified. This would simulate the tendency of the British navy at the time to take seamen from any nation. Perhaps add population based on 1/10th of foreign trade.

iamspamus -> RE: Scenarios (5/21/2007 3:27:46 PM)
Hey, N AF is north Africa. They got ZERO manpower from there, though in many games they use them solely for manpower. This is our issue. With game mechanics they can control N Africa and draw all it's manpower from there. I also disagree with GB getting alot of manpower from North America, Australia, or India in Europe in the NAPOLEONIC AGE. There were several units that were "American" (ie. from the "colonies" probably including Canada), but not many. None from Aus or India, though Welly did get his training there. The majority of non-Brit contributions to the GB army came from Scotland and Ireland. Jason quote: ORIGINAL: Yohan Umm, GB got a huge porportion of it manpower from NA, Aus, India right up until WWII so why is this not historical? quote: ORIGINAL: iamspamus I think that it added complexity, yes, but it also fixed some issues, such as GB going to N AF for manpower and other things. Also, many people like "chrome" in games... quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel My 2c. Like a lot of attempts to expand on and extend, and make more complex, a good game, EiH is a disaster. It does not make the game any more playable or realistic than EiA was, it just adds complexity. In the computer version it's possible that having the computer make the boring calculations and things may take that complexity away and make it a better game, but I would prefer to have just a vanilla EiA/1805 or 1792 scenario.

Paper Tiger -> RE: Scenarios (5/21/2007 5:23:06 PM)
Don't focus so much on units as in infantry and cavalry, GB also has ships and a lot of the sailors and marines were from many other countries. 5% of the sailors in Nelosons fleet were "blacks" equally Portugese, Spanish, and even French sailors were used aboard British ships. Remember that it was the Navy which was the premier service for GB, not the Army.

Mardonius -> RE: Scenarios (5/21/2007 7:00:13 PM)
True, but North Africans were not to be found in the rolls of the British (or any other European) Navy due to cultural differences, which, I believe, is Iamspamus' point. [image]local://upfiles/24637/AACE152928F144F3A2D7B89CD4DF5E6D.jpg[/image]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5