Classic Scenario (Full Version)

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



Message

Marshall Ellis -> Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 12:10:17 PM)

Hey guys:

Here is what I would like to do:

Add a classic EiA map with the original minors.
Use original units (Corps and Fleets).

These are not difficult changes but a little time consuming so this is not a commitment to if or when yet but I simply want to see if this is something the community would like.

Your thoughts and opinions please...




Mardonius -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 12:22:19 PM)

Yes please.



eske -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 12:34:57 PM)

This is something a lot of old EiA'ers would love...

At least it would make it a lot easier for me to get my old FtF buddies hooked on EiANW [:D]

/eske



delatbabel -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 1:19:35 PM)

Yes, 100% please do this.  Although I would also really like a 1792 / 1796 scenario too, and maybe some of the later ones.



RayKinStL -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 2:03:30 PM)

YES, ABSOLUTELY!



bigbillthecollector -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 2:39:36 PM)

Would love that, it would be delightful. [;)]
Bigbillthecollector (former answer man for Avalon Hill's EIA



AresMars -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 2:43:33 PM)

Well, everyone already knows my position on this subject!   [:D]






NeverMan -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 4:39:59 PM)

Yes, this would be nice.

Also, outside of all the map/counter changes, are you planning on implementing the old EiA rules? At least the ones that can be implemented in PBEM without making the game any slower?



DCWhitworth -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 6:21:41 PM)

I would like this, but I'd much rather see 1812/13 and possibly 1792 scenarios for the game as it stands which should be no harder to create.

Creating the 'classic' scenario without changing the game to fit the classic rules would gain very little I feel.



RayKinStL -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 6:44:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I would like this, but I'd much rather see 1812/13 and possibly 1792 scenarios for the game as it stands which should be no harder to create.

Creating the 'classic' scenario without changing the game to fit the classic rules would gain very little I feel.


I agreee with both DC and Never Man...a classic EiA would be awesome, but it would have to have the classic rules as well.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 9:42:23 PM)

I would certainly look back to the older rules and we do lack a few things but I think we're closer than we might think. If we added naval evasion, changed all of the fleets then we would be close.

Tell some of the older rules we would need...




bOrIuM -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 9:52:41 PM)

I like the orignial Idea of an orignial EiA, but would be great to have an editor to do that OR to stick on the origninal rules. Like the Dardanelles control and sme things like that.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 9:54:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

I like the orignial Idea of an orignial EiA, but would be great to have an editor to do that OR to stick on the origninal rules. Like the Dardanelles control and sme things like that.


Agreed. I have a method to add the Dardanelles but need the timing to be right for the DB add.

I'm coding a little here and there on the editor and you will probably see it before the classic scenario.





bOrIuM -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 11:09:30 PM)

This is a short list that i'd like to see from an editor or a classis campain:

1- Possibility to add a minor to a pre-existing kingdom (like adding Algeria to the Ottoman Empire)
2- Possibility to chosse in the options from classic or advanced naval. Classis would be with only heavy ships and actual fighting system and advanced with transport and light ships plus the advanced chart for fighting.
3- The possibility to chose the country in accepting control of a minor, like accept control of Sweden if Russia declare war on it, and not if its GB.
4- Possibility to use stack mode on land phase, when you move the same stack, would be great. Forage and supply still be for each corps.
5- Possibility to create different Kingdoms (Bavaria, Italy, Sweden, Naples, etc.)
6- Remove the possibility for GB (and others), to setup in ennemy blockade box.
7- The dardanelles Control
8- "Honors of war" and surrender for garrison
9- Possibility to block trade to BG from posseded minor free countries (another box in trade like allow free states to trade with BG or something like that).
10- Possiblity to give money to any MP, not only allied ones.
11- Improve the control of Insurrection corps (like in the original game, you choose when and where they pop up)
12- Bernadotte french leadrr becoming swedish leader in August 1810.
13- Alternate dominant powers: allow other MP to gain Dominance in achieving goals and French and English loosing theirs.
14- Militia conversion
15- British training (Hanovre and Portugal)
16- Original corps size

This is adding to the tow options Marshall talked about in the first thread. Hope this would help :)



bOrIuM -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/25/2008 11:11:47 PM)

And, I think an editor like a list of options to enable/disable or chose from a list would be better than an actual editor itself. Easier to use and program i think.



pzgndr -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 1:20:54 AM)

I would definitely like to try the classic scenario with classic map. I would also like to try the EiH variation updated to the more current version, since apparently there were issues with v3.0 that supposedly were "fixed"?

For the editor capability, will the classic and EiH maps be exchangeable? Once the two maps are created, it shouldn't be a problem to mix and match OOBs. I may be inclined to play classic EiA land OOBs but EiH naval and map, but who knows. I expect once an editor is released, we could vahe quite a variety of scenarios to select from. [8D]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 1:36:37 AM)

That would definitely be a goal. Once the areas and nations are built then you should be able to select either map for use in your scenarios. I'm also going to allow you to change the corps capacities so there is not limit as to what you could do here.




Dancing Bear -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 2:14:56 AM)

I'm ok with the current map, but like the classic counters, and the suggested classic EIA naval fixes.

I would put making the PBEM game faster (a lot faster) the priority, even if it sacrifices the EIA purity to appearance. Then fix the security concerns.

The enjoyment of EIA does not come from the appearance of the map or the counters. The enjoyment of EIA came out of playing with a set of different, but balanced major powers, in a game where the amount of commitment necessary made the stakes high enough that you cared about the outcome of each battle and the game. It seemed like the game was a real test and challenge, and something was happening all the time.

The game against the AI does not require the same commitment nor the same stakes, as you can always start over, or go to your latest backup. Where's the challenge there, even if against a super AI?

Speed up the PBEM game, and you will find that the grumbling will go away, and you'll have a product that you can sell forever. As Matrix, you must be nuts to give away an editor so players can make their own scenarios. You'd be better to sell the scenarios, and doubling your profits each time, but you have to fix the game first.



delatbabel -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 6:09:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

This is a short list that i'd like to see from an editor or a classis campain:

4- Possibility to use stack mode on land phase, when you move the same stack, would be great. Forage and supply still be for each corps.
6- Remove the possibility for GB (and others), to setup in ennemy blockade box.
10- Possiblity to give money to any MP, not only allied ones.



I would vote against these as they deviate from the original EiA rules and have the possibility of unbalancing the game. Especially not allowing GB to set up in blockade boxes, as it means if there is a French port at the start that can be stacked with fleets and corps, and is outside GB's first move naval phase, it's game over very quickly.

Remember that in January 1805, GB and France had been at war for over a year, plenty of time to put fleets into blockade boxes.

The requirement to only lend money to allies is a serious part of the diplomacy of the game -- France can't sneak money into the Austrian or Prussian treasuries without allying first, and that is going to lend France grief later in the game when it wants to go to war with them. If France was allowed to bribe Austria or Prussia to separate away from the alliance without stopping the war and going to ally first, then it would be too easy for France to win.

Stack move has been discussed earlier, and IMHO it's a bad idea, especially if you're going to reintroduce the original rules for insurrection corps.



bresh -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 11:38:31 AM)

I agree full with Del,
4,6.10 no.

Im not sure how 9 should work ? You mean say Holland could trade with GB ? But Holland is at war with GB ????
Rest yes.
For the security issue, i think the rolls should be made hidden when defender selects chit, then he returns the battlefile without knowing the rolls (so reloading battle would not be an problem).

Regards
Bresh



bOrIuM -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 1:13:02 PM)

Hi Bresh,

Im not quite sure, but its because I played once with Britain and was at war with a lot of MP + minor and still got a lot of money, didnt calculate, but was obvious for me they still got money from trade.

Thats what I meant



NeverMan -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 5:59:28 PM)

Personally, I really don't have a problem with anything AS LONG AS THEY ARE OPTIONS.



yammahoper -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/26/2008 6:42:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

This is a short list that i'd like to see from an editor or a classis campain:

4- Possibility to use stack mode on land phase, when you move the same stack, would be great. Forage and supply still be for each corps.
6- Remove the possibility for GB (and others), to setup in ennemy blockade box.
10- Possiblity to give money to any MP, not only allied ones.



I would vote against these as they deviate from the original EiA rules and have the possibility of unbalancing the game. Especially not allowing GB to set up in blockade boxes, as it means if there is a French port at the start that can be stacked with fleets and corps, and is outside GB's first move naval phase, it's game over very quickly.

Remember that in January 1805, GB and France had been at war for over a year, plenty of time to put fleets into blockade boxes.

The requirement to only lend money to allies is a serious part of the diplomacy of the game -- France can't sneak money into the Austrian or Prussian treasuries without allying first, and that is going to lend France grief later in the game when it wants to go to war with them. If France was allowed to bribe Austria or Prussia to separate away from the alliance without stopping the war and going to ally first, then it would be too easy for France to win.

Stack move has been discussed earlier, and IMHO it's a bad idea, especially if you're going to reintroduce the original rules for insurrection corps.



Yep, yep and yep. delatbabel, you might be a mind reader.

yamma



Jimmer -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/27/2008 12:28:02 AM)

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.

There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.



Jimmer -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/27/2008 12:32:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
...

As Matrix, you must be nuts to give away an editor so players can make their own scenarios. You'd be better to sell the scenarios, and doubling your profits each time, but you have to fix the game first.


Actually, there are some business models built on this idea. Civilization, in fact, is the first entry. Since Civ II, it's had an editor that was publicly available. It has actually generated MORE business for them.

Guys like me don't want to take time to develop 10 different WWII scenarios. But, other people revel in it. I'm more than happy to pay for ones done well; saves me time. I also look at the ones done by amateurs, and some of them are pretty good.

However, your point does illustrate an issue: How does Matrix make money off of it? If the answer takes more than a second of pause to start spitting out, then Matrix should avoid it. But, this model CAN work.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/27/2008 12:05:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.

There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.


I agree with much of this Jimmer. The Classic scenario would really only get us back to the std map, std counters. The naval changes here alone would be a big step back to the old EiA. This is not to fix anything but basically to fill the need of the folks that want the std map and counters (And there are alot of you)!







NeverMan -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/27/2008 1:39:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.

There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.


I agree with much of this Jimmer. The Classic scenario would really only get us back to the std map, std counters. The naval changes here alone would be a big step back to the old EiA. This is not to fix anything but basically to fill the need of the folks that want the std map and counters (And there are alot of you)!







I really don't agree with Jimmer because there are a TON of things that can be changed with this game to get back to EiA without having to split up the Dip phase.

1. Combined Movement/PP
2. Naval Rules
3. Map/Counters/Fleets
4. Kingdom Creation done right
5. The list goes on, I don't have the time.

BUT, if you REALLY want to get back to Empires in Arms then I think we all know the answer: IP PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!

IP PLAY allows for every little step to be put back in without sacrificing any time. Imagine that with that great thing called the internet.......it's really amazing kids you should check it out.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/27/2008 2:32:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.

There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.


I agree with much of this Jimmer. The Classic scenario would really only get us back to the std map, std counters. The naval changes here alone would be a big step back to the old EiA. This is not to fix anything but basically to fill the need of the folks that want the std map and counters (And there are alot of you)!







I really don't agree with Jimmer because there are a TON of things that can be changed with this game to get back to EiA without having to split up the Dip phase.

1. Combined Movement/PP
2. Naval Rules
3. Map/Counters/Fleets
4. Kingdom Creation done right
5. The list goes on, I don't have the time.

BUT, if you REALLY want to get back to Empires in Arms then I think we all know the answer: IP PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!

IP PLAY allows for every little step to be put back in without sacrificing any time. Imagine that with that great thing called the internet.......it's really amazing kids you should check it out.



LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.





NeverMan -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/27/2008 5:11:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.





1. Is the loan corps PP fixed? Did this get fixed in 1.03? What about combined movement (which is entirely different)?
2. Yes, evasion.
3. Glad we agree. :)
4. There is a thread in Tech Support that you should probably read. Go read that one and it explains the current problems with Kingdom Creation. Here it is: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1898321
5. I don't. This is your job so that's cool, but I unfortunately, don't get paid to post on this forum (I wish!)



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Classic Scenario (8/27/2008 8:52:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.





1. Is the loan corps PP fixed? Did this get fixed in 1.03? What about combined movement (which is entirely different)?
2. Yes, evasion.
3. Glad we agree. :)
4. There is a thread in Tech Support that you should probably read. Go read that one and it explains the current problems with Kingdom Creation. Here it is: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1898321
5. I don't. This is your job so that's cool, but I unfortunately, don't get paid to post on this forum (I wish!)



1. Loaned corps PP is fixed in 1.03. NOT combined movement.
2. Gotit!
3. Good!
4. Will do.
5. I don't get paid to post here as well! Looking for work?





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375