another future request

another future request (Full Version)

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

Message

dodod -> another future request (1/11/2008 2:48:36 AM)
Dominance. I think it would be vital to change dominance in this game. not only for this campaign, but to more easily play a prolonged campaign. France should be able to be knocked off, and others should be able to go up. This may or may not require a lot of programming. most of it will be under the conditions of losing or gaining dominance. Otherwise, the morale and movement would be easy...just change the number. I think this allows for a realistic game, and gives others the ability to strive for more...more strategy. This way it won't be as easy for france to build back up despite being beaten repeatedly. I realize this won't be done soon, but very important.

Grognot -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 5:29:10 AM)
And turning those ceded home provinces into unceded home provinces belonging to the dominant power... is one tasty bonus, especially for Russia.

AndrewV -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 10:05:45 AM)
I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying). France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further. A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.

zaquex -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 10:17:59 AM)
Ive seen it happen with Russia once and strangely enough with Turkey once but i totally agree there is more important things like Combined movement, AI and TCP/IP wich I would prefere being worked at.

baboune -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 11:12:54 AM)
Well it is ridiculously easy to dominate the world with the current AI... Which means easy Dominance.

iamspamus -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 12:26:41 PM)
I've seen it / done it [:)] several times. Twice as RU and once where FR and another one where GB lost dominance. I might have seen Austria go dominant, but it's been a while (so I don't remember exactly). Jason quote: ORIGINAL: AndrewV I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying). France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further. A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.

dodod -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 4:25:34 PM)
I think the more important thing, which did happen often, is france came OUT of dominance...game became more equal.

megalomania2003 -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 7:00:11 PM)
France not being dominant changes the game, but does not make it more equal. In my F2F games I have never seen a country gain dominance. It is to easy to block (declaration of war) and gives so big an advantege that the other players should never let it happen - For that reason I do not see this as an important rule

AresMars -> RE: another future request (1/11/2008 7:42:06 PM)
I also agree that ALTERNATIVE DOMINANT POWERS should be considered a very low priority addition for the future. It has never been core to the EiA Game, and EIANW seems to be all about the NAPOLEONIC WARS (1805-1815) where France is the dominant force in history...

delatbabel -> RE: another future request (1/12/2008 2:50:15 PM)
On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario. I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).

iamspamus -> RE: another future request (1/13/2008 4:37:18 AM)
SUVAROV Rocks!!! He's my favorite leader of the "Napoleonic" wars. Jason quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario. I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5625