OOB (Full Version)

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



Message

Grimrod42 -> OOB (2/1/2008 9:36:11 PM)

Would it be possible to implement the OoB of the original game?



bresh -> RE: OOB (2/1/2008 10:47:11 PM)

Please help me here OoB is short for ?

Regards
Bresh



Grollub -> RE: OOB (2/1/2008 10:47:50 PM)

Order of Battle



Grimrod42 -> RE: OOB (2/1/2008 10:59:09 PM)

EiANw deviates from the original game and I believe it should go back to it.



Grimrod42 -> RE: OOB (2/1/2008 11:00:22 PM)

examples
- Spanish militia corps
- no cav in Russian corps
- infantry in Austrian gaurd corps



AresMars -> RE: OOB (2/1/2008 11:49:58 PM)

An order of battle (often abbreviated as ORBAT, OOB, O/B, or OB) is an organizational tool used by military intelligence to list and analyze enemy military units.

The term is also used by historians and war gamers to list the organization and unit structure of both sides in a battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle



Ted1066 -> RE: OOB (2/2/2008 5:49:16 PM)

This has my support - I've read the Harm rules, but never really felt that they offered enough to deviate from the original rules set. I'd like to further this request by asking to go back to the original map (without the errors, mind you : ). Call me a purist.

Cheers,

Ted



Soapy Frog -> RE: OOB (2/2/2008 10:21:00 PM)

I would agree. Not too happy about the changes overall.



NeverMan -> RE: OOB (2/2/2008 11:22:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

This has my support - I've read the Harm rules, but never really felt that they offered enough to deviate from the original rules set. I'd like to further this request by asking to go back to the original map (without the errors, mind you : ). Call me a purist.

Cheers,

Ted


Personally, I never really understood why people got so excited about EiH, outside of the Advanced Naval rules (which I believe were published in General, the Magazine) I didn't care much for it.



Murat -> RE: OOB (2/2/2008 11:37:43 PM)

1792. You know you love it. Add it. Play it. You will no longer care about the current OOBs [:)]



NeverMan -> RE: OOB (2/3/2008 3:29:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

1792. You know you love it. Add it. Play it. You will no longer care about the current OOBs [:)]


Ok, so the revolution campaign was a whole lot of fun. True. But down with the other stuff.



ecn1 -> RE: OOB (2/3/2008 4:20:00 AM)



Or another possibility, if the OOB was based on EiH 3.0, use the more recent version (4.0) that is more like EiA and fix things like not having cav in russian corps, not the OOB from EiH from 4-5 years ago..



zaquex -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 1:16:37 AM)

I still would want to know the rational behind choosing EiH 3.0 OOB when its arguably the most criticised OOB thats been in use in some sort of semi official capacity.



pzgndr -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 1:46:08 AM)

I would expect with the editor we will see "official" EiA OOBs, or "official" EiH variants based on different versions, or whatever.



Grimrod42 -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 4:15:59 PM)

This should be fixed next Patch not waiting for an editor...
I've played with Michael Treasure Eia and he had not issue with us not using EiH so I don't see why they pc game should either



AresMars -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 4:48:30 PM)

As EIANW is a mix of both EiA and EiH v3.0 there should be no surprise about the OOB changes.

EiA was a workable, playable game as it was, however, Gamers being who they are always like to tinker...that lead to EiH.

It was often mentioned that EiH v3 was 'imperfect' and the 4.0 and beyond was much improved.....it was also mentioned that EiH 5.1 had _too much_ "chrome"!  (Is that possible....in a boardgame yes it can make the game unwieldy...in a computer game......not a bad thing IMHO)

Personally, I would like to see EIANW look and feel much more like the orginal EIA, but that decision remains with Matrix and their Programming team.

I like the 'chrome' that was added in EiH (more historical, more accurate, much more options, etc....) but it is NOT a requirement for enjoyment of EiA.

BTW, I have never played EiH.....but have read and enjoyed the various versions over the years....

In the end, EIANW is what it is.....We'll see where the future takes it....

NOTE: I noticed I did not indicate that I would like the EiA OOB. VOTE for EiA OOB.





sw30 -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 7:17:49 PM)

Personally, I was surprised at the decision to use EiH 3.0, out of all the EiH versions, that was probably the least balanced one OOB...  I'd vote for EiH 4.0 just to avoid the 5.x chrome.)



Soapy Frog -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 7:37:49 PM)

I'd vote for EiA, and then make the game moddable so that the EiH types can do their thing too. I'm all for modding. But you have to start somewhere.



Ted1066 -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 10:04:38 PM)

I think the EiH 3.0 rules were chosen because AT THE TIME they were the current set. Keep in mind these guys started developing this in 2002. Marshall et al. obviously stuck with the rules rather than update part way through development.

I'm hoping that into the future an editor is released that allows us to change OOBs (or Matrix just does it themselves). <fingers crossed>

Cheers,

Ted



Grimrod42 -> RE: OOB (2/4/2008 10:23:20 PM)

It should be an easy thing to fix - I am with Soapy on this



pzgndr -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 3:13:10 AM)

quote:

I think the EiH 3.0 rules were chosen because AT THE TIME they were the current set. Keep in mind these guys started developing this in 2002.


With the new naval unit types and additional minor countries, maybe the more recent EiH v4.0 should be the OOB to shoot for as the EiANW defaults? Considering the changes in this adaptation, the "new" OOBs should be assessed for play balance on their own merits once all the bugs are fixed. Either which way, when Marshall starts filling in the OOBs for all the other scenarios he may as well be consistent - either use original OOBs or the updated EiH v4.0.

quote:

I'm hoping that into the future an editor is released that allows us to change OOBs


It won't be much of an editor if it doesn't. I have to agree with "In the end, EIANW is what it is....." Marshall should be allowed some creative license as the game developer to make whatever compromises he thinks appropriate. Everyone does not have to agree 100% right now, and can use the editor later to create an original EiA version or the various EiH versions or something completely different.



tolstoy1812 -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 7:56:26 AM)

Pardon me for jumping in with a question: I ask because I'm thinking of purchasing EiANW. What was EiH? I mean, what does it stand for, and was it a computer game or a board game? EiA I have played as a board game, so I think I know what you're referring to there.

And, do you mean that in the EiANW computer game, you cannot put Russian cavalry into a Russian Corps? In 1805, that's not strictly historical. But later, in 1812, it sounds right.

Anyway, I gather that the allocation of forces to corps is too restrictive for some veteran players of EiA? Is that the gist of this thread? How big a negative is that? Enough that I shouldn't buy the game?

Pardon all the questions, but the price is high for this game, and I don't want to be disappointed.



AresMars -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 8:15:11 AM)

EiH is Empires in Harm, a variant of the Empires in Arms orginial. It was also a boardgame like EiA

You can learn more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih/ and more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih-files/

Yes, in EIANW you cannot have cavalry in an Infantry Corps so you need a Cavalry Corps.  ie. The Russian I Corps was 18 I/M, 2 C in EiA, it has no C in EIANW and is 16 I/M. (Smaller and no Cav)

Some veteran players are not pleased with this change, as it changes the concentration of force they may have been used to.

Negative is relative...would it bother you?  The game remains playable but EIANW is very different from the orginal EiA that you may have been use to.

I would suggest spending some time reading through to forums so that you can make a more informed choice - lots to read and learn!



NeverMan -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 5:41:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

EiH is Empires in Harm, a variant of the Empires in Arms orginial. It was also a boardgame like EiA

You can learn more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih/ and more here http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/eih-files/

Yes, in EIANW you cannot have cavalry in an Infantry Corps so you need a Cavalry Corps.  ie. The Russian I Corps was 18 I/M, 2 C in EiA, it has no C in EIANW and is 16 I/M. (Smaller and no Cav)

Some veteran players are not pleased with this change, as it changes the concentration of force they may have been used to.

Negative is relative...would it bother you?  The game remains playable but EIANW is very different from the orginal EiA that you may have been use to.

I would suggest spending some time reading through to forums so that you can make a more informed choice - lots to read and learn!


I had no idea that they removed cavalry from corps, that just doesn't make any sense. Why would they do this? It couldn't have been difficult to implement and it totally changes things around.

So now, in order to not give up calvary superiority you need to bring an extra corps into the fight, which will bring down your factor count OR will decrease your leader rating.

Is MG planning on changing this anytime soon?



pzgndr -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 5:52:32 PM)

quote:

Yes, in EIANW you cannot have cavalry in an Infantry Corps so you need a Cavalry Corps.


Prussian infantry corps can have guards and cavalry. I don't fully understand the basis for all the OOBs, but obviously EiANW can allow mixed unit types. The editor should allow any OOB version to be implemented.

A more fundamental question for Marshall is whether he is willing to reconsider his default OOBs. I sense limited enthusiasm for EiH v3.0. Maybe the original EiA OOBs would be best, and then allow modders to implement EiH later.



AresMars -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 5:59:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:  pzgndr
quote:

A more fundamental question for Marshall is whether he is willing to reconsider his default OOBs.  I sense limited enthusiasm for EiH v3.0.  Maybe the original EiA OOBs would be best, and then allow modders to implement EiH later.


In the end, you can expect the Land OOB's to be adjusted by the players as soon as that becomes an option for players.

Then we will have a round of discussion/debate/arguements about what will be ACCEPTABLE OOB's for future games....happy times!  [;)]

Returning the Naval OOB to it's original EiA standard will be a different kettle of fish....I don't think that is ever going to happen.





Grimrod42 -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 9:40:58 PM)

I think this should be fixed next patch
back to original EiA (ie the way it was meant to be)

and then when the editor comes out people can change it to their hearts desire
Till then will this be fixed soon...



Grognot -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 10:59:33 PM)

There's nothing to be "fixed", since the OOB is essentially working as designed. 



tolstoy1812 -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 11:02:05 PM)

Thank you. As I am looking for a strategic game (that I don't have to keep up on the dining room table) to generate miniatures battles, the corps organization is not such a problem for me. I'm going to read more posts and threads and see if that's doable.

Thank you for your response.



zaquex -> RE: OOB (2/5/2008 11:18:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

There's nothing to be "fixed", since the OOB is essentially working as designed. 


EiANW also essentially works as designed, maybe it doesnt need any fixes either.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75