Hello all from the development team! (Full Version)

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



Message

Marshall Ellis -> Hello all from the development team! (10/3/2001 10:23:00 AM)

Hello fellow wargamers. The development team would like to say that we are very excited to be teaming with Matrix on this Grand Campaign! My name is Marshall Ellis with SPME Technologies and I would like to get your input for Napoloenic Wars. We believe that wargamers know best how a wargame should be played so you will be vital in the development cycle. We fell in love with this game from the start and we feel that it belongs on a 21" monitor. Thanks in advance...



Le Tondu -> (10/3/2001 10:07:00 PM)

Marshall,
You all are certainly starting off on the right foot. Good for you guys. I hope that you guys love Napoleonics and that you just don't look at this game as another "project". My recommendation is to make a stragegic level Napoleonic game that everyone will use as a standard for Napoleonic games in the future. Right now, for WW II, it can be argued that COMBAT MISSION is the standard. Their simultaneous "we-go" turn base is very attractive. Quite simply put, "real-time" games s**k, IMO. Napoleonic events were not quick events and you'd kill your game if those two words were EVER associated with it. Personally, I'd stay away from the temptation to add in tactical battles. It would slow the game's overall developement, IMO. Maybe, make it possible for that to happen as a future product. Can we count $$$$? We'd suck that up just as quickly. For me, things can be summed up in a simple phrase. "The greater the detail, the better it is." The potential is almost limitless. I'm talking about the game and not necessarily the video display. For instance, take the common land unit, "the corps". When one considers the power of computers nowadays, having the ability to contol the composition of a corps is essential for a game like this. As one with some programming experience, I feel that I can safely say that keeping track of the number of men in an infantry battalon or cavalry regiment shouldn't be difficult at all. Those values changed a lot during a Napoleonic campaign, so they're very important. Transfering infantry battalions, cavalry regiments, or artillery batteries between the different corps is just as important. A utility to display AND print a detailed OOB of a fortress, a corps, OR an army at any time would add a LOT to your game. Maybe the ability to change a corps commander just like a national or army leader would be nice. I'm sure that there must be parallels when regarding the naval aspect of the game. Oh, yeah. (Constructive criticism here.) That darn shadow underneath and to the left of any land mass looks really strange IMO. I'd get rid of that effect right away. (NO offense meant to whomever put it there. I know your heart was in the correct place.) Wargaming is such a fascinatiing endeaver. In it, we assume the role of a commander and we get to go 'right' where our historical counterpart went 'left'. The buzz word is freedom. We hear it SO much these days. Freedom to do whatever the national or army leader was free to do. Build a navy instead of armies. Sign treaties and make alliances. Spy and cause assasinations. Have an army invade someplace or go into cantonments for the winter. Interdict shipping lanes or protect them. Begin, increase or end conscription. Raise or lower taxes. Last but not least: scenario generation for those what-if situations. For instance: what if the Austrians stayed loyal to Napoleon in 1812-1813? What-ifs make for great fun. In order for the gamer to take full advantage and customize a situation, he needs a great amount of freedom. I'd like to see a point system where players can "pick" their armies and ensure play balance. The greater the freedom that we have and the greater the detail -the better your game will be. Well, if I think of anything more I'll add it here. I wish you the best of luck and God's speed! It is REALLY nice to have something REALLY nice to look forward to in these strange days. Thanks. Rick



David Heath -> (10/4/2001 12:24:00 AM)

Hi Guys This is a game Matrix tried doing some time ago and do to outside reasons had to be dropped. This has been a long term goal aso you can count on this NOT just being another project. Matrix has gone through to much already for it to be just a project. We do not plan on making the game real time. I am sure Marshall and I will get back to everyone on this with more details in the near future.



sol_invictus -> (10/4/2001 1:35:00 AM)

To add a few points to Tondue's post, I would like to have an option for random events to be included. It really increases the realism to have to deal with some really crappy luck sometimes, as well as benefit from some very fortuitous circumstances. I also think it is vital that the Diplomatic and Strategic AI is robust, as even with internet play as an option, I still see myself and many others having to play solo many times. Finally, for now, I believe everyone would like to have a large amount of control over their own destiny. This not only includes the ability to change Corps composition but also the larger Strategic decisions that a Nation at this time would need to ponder. Im thinking along the lines of economic decisions, ie Tax rates and whether or not to abide by the Continental System. Also conscription rates with the social repercussions that follow should have to be considered. If you create what I think you are planning and know you to be capable of doing; essentially EiA for the computer; you will have achieved the Holy Grail of computer wargamming.
I am sure that over the next few weeks you will get plenty of feedback on what I and others would wish to see included.



Lascar -> (10/4/2001 3:25:00 AM)

This is great news! I was hoping that Matrix was going to resurrect this project after the sad demise of the Wars of Napoleon last year. I'm also glad that you are utilizing some of the fine graphics that were developed for Wars of Napoleon. I am really looking forward to the release of Napoleonic Wars. Thanks.



Grumble -> (10/4/2001 3:55:00 AM)

FWIW,
Maybe a two-tiered game system, with a "War and Peace" layer and an "EIA" layer. (Not unlike SPWAW with its fully adjustable levels of difficulty.)
This would give users the level of detail they wish. Also, potential new gamers interested in the era would not be put off by an "EIA"-level game-a chance to grab greater market share.
Similarly, experienced gamers could go VFR direct to the EIA game, getting as much detail as they can endure...
Agree with the Random Events idea, and robust Political/Diplomatic interaction.



Didz -> (10/4/2001 8:55:00 PM)

I'm with Le Tondu in his wish to see a turn based game with PBEM capability. I would also add that when considering PBEM do NOT fall into the trap of assumming a 1 on 1 format. Many existing PBEM games, not least the BG series, have no facility for team play or chain of command player structures. For a large strategic game like this it is a must. Like the others I am happy to accept that an inbuilt tactical game may be 'a bridge too far' in fact it could be a mistake. It certainly was for N1813. However, I would still argue for the inclusion of an option to resolve battles outside the game and feedback the results. Not only does this open up opportunities for the game to be used by clubs as a Campaign Management Tool it also leaves opportunities for the addition of a seperate tactical battle game extension later. Finally, as a campaign moderator I would like to lodge a plea for a location specific fog of war mask to be included in the display options. This in effect would hide from view all unit information which should not be available from a selected location. At present most games BG included display all information available from every location occupied by friendly troops and this is fine for single player games but when running multi-player games it is inappropriate and I would like to be able to limit each player to what they personally have a right to know. [ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Didz ]



Le Tondu -> (10/5/2001 1:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Didz:
[QB] ......I would still argue for the inclusion of an option to resolve battles outside the game and feedback the results. Not only does this open up opportunities for the game to be used by clubs as a Campaign Management Tool it also leaves opportunities for the addition of a seperate tactical battle game extension later. QB]
Wow, how could I have forgotten that? Good going Didz! That is a very excellent idea. Matrix has the beginnings of something REAL nice. I wish them luck. Rick



Randy -> (10/8/2001 12:24:00 AM)

Hi guys I've always been a Steel Panthers/modern war type of gamer. I don't know much about the Napoleonic era, but would love to learn. Good luck with your new game!!



AbsntMndedProf -> (10/8/2001 7:06:00 PM)

Welcome aboard to Marshall and the Napoleonic Wars development team! I'm looking forward to this new game. Btw: I posted a suggestion in the 'Steel Panthers: World at War' forum, suggesting a Napoleonic strategic game based on the combat software that SP:WaW uses. Such a game would be an excellent vehicle for a whole slew of mega-campaigns based on Napoleon's campaigns in Italy, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Egypt. I would gladly purchase such mega-campaigns. I still have fond memories of my days playing Napoleonic miniatures, and am sure that lots of Napoleonic fans would also flock to such a game. Eric Maietta



LarkinVB -> (10/11/2001 4:13:00 AM)

My greetings go to the development team. I'm designer/coder of Titans of Steel - Warring Suns, also to be published somtimes soon by Matrixgames. I'm also an old napoleonics grognard and would have dared to do what you guys try to accomplish if not ToS has eaten my time. Since I have lots of experiences in napoleonic wargaming ( miniatures, Empires in Arms boardgame, battleground gamers by Talonsoft) I'm offering my help to make it a game to be remembered.



Galahad -> (10/11/2001 7:00:00 AM)

Here are a few first thoughts on feedback. 1. First and foremost, the ability to edit. The biggest difference between computer war games and paper games is the latter can be modified by house rules, variants and general “what ifs.” Personally, I would love to try a super grand deluxe campaign ranging from 1788/89 to 1815. Modifying army strengths, naval strengths, and the ability to create ahistorical scenerios can be fun too. Some of the best loved features of computer games certainly seems to be customization. User end custom rules also helps keeps games fresh and adds to the replay value too. One excellent (IMHO) example of customizing is Space Empires IV. The game itself is maddingly close to genius, so much potential marred by a clunky interface, bad AI and other problems. But each and every aspect of the game is contained in a .txt file and is easily modified by even us non programmers. For those who are interested, SEIV is a work in progress, and numerous upgrades and patches have been put out. The latest patch is due next week or so. 2. A system which rewards historical behavior via in game benefits, as opposed to forcing historical behavior. For example, Prussia should have some benefit (perhaps a glory point bonus) in remaining neutral as long as possible in the 1805 to 1806 era. Same theory for military rules. 3. Land force detail level; I agree with Le Tondu, that such a game could in theory measure manpower by individual soldier. Whether or not that will add to game play, I can’t say just yet. But I would think that small numbers of men, no more than 50, should be the scale used. There is no reason to use 1000 man factors. Cannon should be measured down to the individual cannon. I don’t have an opinion as to whether the smallest military unit should be the division or battalion/regiment. 4. Naval detail level. Each ship should be represented. From what I can make out of the screen shots, it looks like there are light and heavy ships. 5. Naval control. I would like two options, one of which would be chosen in the game setup. First is a total control option, under which players would be able to move and have a fair degree of control of ships at sea. This option would allow players to control and see naval battles as they would land battles. Second option would be to give ships orders, and then turn them over to the computer/admiral. Reports would then come back as to the results of the naval operations. While the latter would be more accurate, I would prefer the former. After all, grand strategy does imply the player becomes the controlling marshal or admiral at any given battle. But once in a while, it could be fun to curse at the French Navy’s incompetence and inability to intervene. 6. The maps – look good, but I also agree with Le Tondu. The land looks like its floating on the water. I have visions of sailors climbing down long ladders to reach the ships far below. In conclusion for now, if the game has all the detail of Empires in Harm Version 4 and then some, I am going to be one happy camper. BTW, the empires in harm website should be up shortly under a new host. Galahad.



Von Rom -> (10/13/2001 1:07:00 AM)

Hi guys - I am so glad to see this game in development. Here are a few suggestions: 1) Make everything as variable and customizable as possible. This includes difficulty level, fog of war, experience levels, random events, etc. 2) Include a superb scenario/campaign editor. Nothing gives longevity to a game better than these unique tools. This would mean that the game would sell for a long time to come. 3) Give players the ability to raise armies (from an historical force pool of a civilian population), build cannons, ships, etc. 4) Allow the players to have the ability to blocade ports, institute trade embargos, form alliances, engage in complex diplomacy (ie. to be able to ask an ally for troops, to ask the ally for assistance in a battle, or to allow you to provide financial/military assistance to an ally), to have to deal with civil unrest at home, as well as a few economic aspects of running a country (if you run low on funds do you run a deficit? do you invade a country and demand tribute? do you plunder a country? or do you ask an ally for financial assistance?). 5) The maps and the military figures look terrific. While the "medallions" beneath the soldiers look great, I would suggest replacing them with a small national flag that could be attached to the left shoulder of the soldier in question. Including a small crease in the flag would also give it a look of moving in the breeze. 6) I would also suggest a few different poses for the soldiers to indicate the status of that army. For example: an "action" pose would indicate that the armies are invading/engaging in battle. A "resting" pose could indicate that the army is not moving. And a "movement" pose would indicate the army is travelling. Those are just a few suggestions. I wish you all the very best of luck. I'll be following development of this game with keen interest.



John Hutton -> (10/14/2001 7:42:00 AM)

There are a few obsessives out there who would go Matrix Napoleonic at a moment's notice. Check out: http://malta.solow.org/homepage.html This is an EIA game, with a very good webpage (not my responsibility, but I do play in it). Problem is its almost real time pace.



no-dice -> (10/23/2001 7:46:00 AM)

One of the real challenges in doing a game (Computer or board) of this time period is trying to adjust game play to reflect major changes that occurred in the armies of the time. How does a designer take into account a disasters (such as Napoleon’s Russian campaign which destroyed much of the French Army)? Other nations were no less immune to the consequences of excessive losses (Austria for one) and England undoubtedly. I think the design team will have it’s hands full if they try and produce something more than a “Napoleon does Axis and Allies” game. J Positive factors are also difficult to quantify when it comes to designing a game. Numerous examples of changes in “staying power and determination” occurred during the period of 1805 to 1815. To name but a few: The tenacity of the Russian troops during (and largely after) the Russian Campaign.
The rebirth of Prussia in 1813 with a new National Army which were able to give the French as good as they got.
The determined national resistance in France during the 1814 campaign.
The marked improvement of the Spanish Army during the Peninsular war (ok maybe it could only get better!) All of these examples tend to reflect that a standard “quality” rating of each country is just wishful thinking at best. Remembering the old Empires in Arms ratings giving the French “4.0” moral no matter how many losses they suffered is a good example of a simple system – a bad simple system. I can only wish the developers the best with their endeavour. If you wish to get a good view of the political and military situation for Napolean during 1813-1815 get a copy of
“The Fall of Napoleon – The Final Betrayal” by David Hamilton-Williams. It covers the politics of the last 2 years very well. No-dice



Link -> (10/23/2001 1:55:00 PM)

This strategic Napoleonic game sounds very promissing. I have one request though at this stage. Can the provinces/areas change color on the map as they changes hands i.e. if for instance France conquer "Torino" that area on the map will change color to blue if blue is the color for France. /Lars L.



Marshall Ellis -> (10/24/2001 7:25:00 AM)

Great input! How much unit control would be good during combat? What kinds of combat interfaces would you look for? Give me some game examples of where there is a good combat interface? Bad examples?



Bedel Christian -> (12/9/2001 4:39:00 PM)

Just a small contribution as a miniature figurines fan: I think the soldier icons of Austria and Prussia in the screen shots have been inverted. I hope you will take you time and not release a half finished game as was the case for Wargamer 1813. Good luck gentlemen !



Von Rom -> (12/20/2001 4:27:00 AM)

Great input! How much unit control would be good during combat? What kinds of combat interfaces would you look for? Give me some game examples of where there is a good combat interface? Bad examples? Marshall Ellis I'm not sure what type of combat you will have in this game, but here is a suggestion: Movement on the STRATEGIC map by my army to a province occupied by a rival army might lead to a battle. This turn-based battle could then take place on a TACTICAL map. This tactical map could be similar to maps found in games like Civil War Generals 2 and other games of this type. It would have elevations, rivers, trees, etc of the battlefield. Combat could then take place in a way that is similar to combat in Civil War Generals 2; that is, certain objectives must be taken to qualify for defeat, minor victory, major victory, etc. When the player moves to the tactical map, all armies are in place historically, but then the player is allowed to fight the battle as he sees fit. Without complicating things too much, there could be simple supply rules, such that if certain supply points are occupied or cut-off from the opposing army, then that army suffers higher attrition in desertions, bad morale, reduced ammunition, etc. this would make supply centers hotly contested areas for maneuver and battle. Also, if the battle is going badly, the player would have the choice of surrendering or retreating to an adjacent province.
This combat would involve variable-sized units depending on the size of the battle. Again, by looking how CW2 set up the units and cannons, might give you some interesting ideas. This would also allow for formation changes, artillery fire, cavalry charges, weather effects, with the proper sound effects.
The units in the tactical battles could have animations when they move similar to units in Civ 3 or they could just have the sound effects of marching when they move. It would be nice if all the tactical units are modelled to actually look like groups of soldiers, cavalry and artillery (again similar to CWG2) rather than just icons on a map. That's a starting point. This would be my ideal game. I certainly hope it's possible to implement [ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Von Rom ]



ntCoolHand -> (12/21/2001 12:38:00 AM)

Another important facet of the Napoleonic era is the existence of varied leader personalities. One man - Napoleon - molded that time period to what we know today so I think the different marshalls and generals should be represented together with their quirks, strengths, and foibles. Their actions could make or break any campaign as Davout's steadfastness at the Jena-Austertadt or Grouchy's indecisiveness at Waterloo.



Khi -> (12/21/2001 12:50:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Marshall Ellis:
Great input! How much unit control would be good during combat? What kinds of combat interfaces would you look for? Give me some game examples of where there is a good combat interface? Bad examples?
Like most everyone else, first I gotta thank the folks at Matrix for picking this up again! My two cents- take the Europa Universalis model, and don't sweat individual unit control during combat. We're talking strategic level game, and anything beyond generic tactics ("Cordon", "Assault", etc.) could bog the game down needlessly. I really want to emphasize PBeM compatibility- having to play out individual battles would be excrutiating by email.



denisonh -> (12/22/2001 4:03:00 AM)

I agree with comments earlier in the thread that maintaining a strategic focus is key. At the strategic level, it is the managment of the leaders of your armies, corps, and divisions that are critical. Napoleon could not be everywhere at once, and depended heavily on his key Marshals to execute with only strategic guidance(particulary Davout). Even in a "grand tactical" environment, once a campaign was begun, there was limited "control" over manuevering corps ("March to the sound of the guns"). So I would hope that there is a realistic command and control model built into any tactical/grand-tactical combat module that reflects orders(missions/objective), order transmission(delays/interception), and leadership (aggressiveness, competence, and order interpretation). Big battles hinged on orders being delayed, intercepted, not acted on, or disobeyed (I like the example of Picton at Vittoria: took the bridge at Tres Puentes without orders from Wellington, the Napoleonic Era's biggest Micro Manager).
I would have to concur with Didz on that a tactical module may be a bridge too far, and that combat resolution from an external source would be excellent. But in any case, I would like to see leadership get it's due as I have seen only few games model well (I think that Interactive Magic's "American Civil War" is the only game to really focus on leadership to that extent).



Marshall Ellis -> (12/22/2001 7:33:00 AM)

What is a good medium as far as combat control. What would be the perfect level of tactical control? PBEM would most likely have the least amount of control otherwise the game could last for years.



RB_Owl -> (12/22/2001 8:55:00 AM)

If this game is to based off of the EIA system I think it should be easy. The attacker(phasing player) and defender(non-phasing) should be pre-determined. After that, each player's forces should be displayed in corps format and strength points totaled at the bottom. Leader's tactical die roll modifiers should be displayed before tactical chits are selected too. I think the tactical chit options should be displyed to the player in buttons he could click on to choose his battle tactic. If there is Guard present there should be a range of % chance the commitment of Guard to break your opponent you are willing to risk. Are you will to risk only a 4 in 6 (66%) chance, or greater, of the guard breaking your opponent. If so the the guard is automatically commited in the round that criteria is met. Also note there may be a time where you have a good chance of breaking and the commitment of the guard will reduce pursuit by increasing the enemy's morale loss. After that the results should be then be generated. I don't think there is anything to do for pursuit except doing the calculations. The looser should then be given the choice on what type of troop losses he will take (i.e. cavalry, regular infantry, militia). Is this the type of feedback you are looking for Marshall Ellis? Or am I mis-understanding what you are looking for? I am more than eager to help you guys talk about ideas. Thanks, Owl



Marshall Ellis -> (12/22/2001 8:21:00 PM)

Owl: This is exactly what I am looking for. Thank you very very much. I actually like the EIA combat system as well. Chit selection is about as detailed as you should get in a strategy game. Leaders are going to play large role (As they should). I personally grade combat in games by the following criteria: 1. Is it accurate of combat in the proper time period? (Force levels, casualty levels, tactics, etc.) 2. Is it fast? 3. Is it easy? If I could get two out of three of these items then I would be happy. Anyway, I digress. Thank you for your input, Owl.



denisonh -> (12/27/2001 5:25:00 AM)

Marshall, Like that short list. But I hope the two you don't get are fast and easy without the historical accuracy. As for that piece, the EIA combat piece may not be the best. With the ability of computers, a more detailed resolution of the battle is possible within the same kind of frame work: the player inputs tactics, designates his reserve and it's committment criteria, and then the combat is resolved. The resolution could be modeled as a lower level combat simulation with the atomic elements being battalions and regiments. Grouped to Brigade/division level with a commander who is rated for inspiration, competence and aggressiveness. So unit type, strength, morale, leadership, and tactics get rolled into the combat resolution. Then a combat report showing the outcome, losses, and leader casualties would be easy to generate. The resolution would be more detailed but still be quick and easy. That is my two cents worth. Joe



CharlyFox -> (1/22/2002 1:52:00 AM)

As far As I m concerned I rate EIA as the best Strategic level Napoleonic Game. I saw the modifications done in France to play it by e-mail and didn t find them really satisfactory (removing the very fun double move from the french), but that s a constraint from pebm, and the system based on impulses specific per country was probably as good as one can get As far as I m concerned, Corp level is good enough, but I crave to see what system you ll set that ll make this game fun to play solo as well as via pebm and internet ... Anyway, someone made a reference to EU (also a good game) and say you needn t bother to put too much effort in the fights. I would kind of agree, any fun with the fights would be a bonus for me, you can t expect to have a game spanning 10 years and afford to spend 3 hours on a single battle. At the same time, as you choose Corp level for the simulation, one would expect to see some manouver and the skilled one at managing the corps to gain an advantange over the other one. I can t wait till you release your game and see how you ve managed to overcome those difficulties! Good luck and best wishes for this new year



mogami -> (2/10/2002 8:34:00 PM)

Hello, I wonder can Napoleonic tactics be reflected on a Corps Level or will it just be giving the Corps a stregth factor modified by a leader rating. Then it would simply be which country has the best Corps and leaders. (are leaders historical or random generated?)(I seem to remember a board game from long ago where the Napoleon counter was stronger by its self then some of the enemy Corps) This may be confusing I will attempt a better phrasing.
Napoleonic tactics are much like the rock paper scissors game. Cav is good against infantry in open/column/line formations so infantry adopts square versus cav, But infantry in square is vulerable to arty or line infantry. Arty works against whatever comes head on but needs infantry near by to keep enemy units off its flank and rear. The Corps Organization reflects the tactics. It is a mini army containing all 3 combat arms and capable of conducting operations alone or as part of a larger army. If battles are resolved at Corps level then you have to assume combined arms are being used and then it becomes Leader A is better then leader B so Leader A wins. But if you go one size down to division level then you can at lest balance it a little by adding the skills of the divisonal leaders. (you could prop up a poor Corps commander by assigning him decent div commanders)(this is assuming countries are stuck with historical leaders, If the Duke of Brunswick is a clown(just an example I like the Duke)it might be best not to use the Brunswick army) (smaller then divison size units and you would be able to actually fight the battle (hope hope) Corps are fine for pushing around a map and deciding where a battle is to take place but battles need to be resolved at a lower level in order for there to be any measure of how the player impacting the results. (Corps level the French would almost certainly have a great advantage over nearly every other country)
Well I think I've muddied that up quite enough to keep everyone scratching their heads till lunch. I love this era, I like to play Russia or try to manoveor one of the small German states without becoming swallowed up by France and becoming a puppet for the Corsican Ogre.



Ghis -> (2/23/2002 11:28:00 AM)

Hello, I would like a strategic game, but I wonder if it would be possible to have the tactical level as well. For instance, imagine a campaign in which you can fight the battles with LGA (Austerlitz) of JJM engine. The idea here is that without good strategy, tactical genius is often useless and without competent commanders on the field, good strategy is also useless. At least, there could be an option for such a tactical level in the game (such as there was in MOO2). There is a civil war game in the making right now that will include both the strategic and tactical level. Imo, the games of the future will go that way too, even though each level may be an option in the game. Ghis



New York Jets -> Civil War Game (3/17/2002 9:48:44 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ghis
[B]There is a civil war game in the making right now that will include both the strategic and tactical level. Imo, the games of the future will go that way too, even though each level may be an option in the game.

Ghis [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you have a link or a website I could check for this Civil War game that is in the works? I'd be HOT for that one.:D



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.734863