I've died and went to heaven (Full Version)

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



Message

Repo Man -> I've died and went to heaven (9/21/2002 6:12:13 AM)

I must have been the first to notice, NAW is the computer version of EiA!

I'll let the rest of the regulars argue the pros and cons, suffice it to say im all pro! I haven't been able to play this amazing game in far too long for a number of reasons, but a full fledged computer version will fix that.

Givent the number of varients out there for EiA, will this version be able to be modified? Is the holy grail of EiA, the grand scale 1789-1815 game possible?

Now I have to find my binder with my own house rules.

You made my day, and I'm pre-sold already.



Paul Vebber -> (9/21/2002 8:39:00 AM)

Yes, we recently entered into a deal with ADG to officially use EIA as the basis for this game - the "basic game" will be true to the board game, with a number of varients.

We will issue a press release with the full details of our teaming with ADG in the next week or so.

But yes, computer Empires in Arms will soon be a reality!



pasternakski -> Yeah! (9/21/2002 8:48:13 AM)

Jeez, man, I was afraid, from the lack of activity on this forum, that this game wasn't generating much interest. I'm glad to see that there is at least one more EiA fanatic out there who recognizes what a tremendous game this might be.

I have worried over some of the official posts here and in the "development" department on the company Web site that this may be another half-baked attempt (note the "real-time" oriented comment in the development data) at taking the Sid Meier approach to another disgusting level.

There have been occasional reassurances here that this will be a true delight to us Napoleonic grognards, and, as I have implicit faith in Matrix/2by3 on the basis of their other products - I should say MOST of their other products - I am coming along for the ride. I will likely buy on the basis of the subject matter and my high regard for the company, but I am beginning to worry, now three months or so from the projected release date, about the dearth of details and development information. I don't want this to be another "Infogrames" product, if you know what I mean...

Gimme guts in this game, not cutesy crap.



pasternakski -> (9/21/2002 8:51:55 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]Yes, we recently entered into a deal with ADG to officially use EIA as the basis for this game - the "basic game" will be true to the board game, with a number of varients.

We will issue a press release with the full details of our teaming with ADG in the next week or so.

But yes, computer Empires in Arms will soon be a reality! [/B][/QUOTE]

XLNT, Paul! I was writing my nasty little post (We're not worthy! We're not worthy!) at the exact same time you were putting this online.

What great news!!! Thanks, man!



Uncle Toby -> You ain't in heaven till the fat angel sings (9/21/2002 8:07:51 PM)

EiA was a good game but in making a computer version you should not be blind to it’s faults or it’s limitations. EiA was about two skills, diplomacy and advanced planning. The warfare/supply system was interesting but simple, it’s main value to the game was to limit the range of military activity and so add player balance. The tactical combat system added noting to the game except color and the illusion of significant input.

What made EiA seem so wonderful was the intensity and balance which it brought to the simple, commonplace game framework of planning/diplomacy. This was done at some cost in other areas, notably the ponderous game pace, burdensome, involved rules and unending record-keeping. To a hardened groniard these burdens seem light but to the average person even the average gamer the game was daunting.

In making a computer version it’s important to conserve what made the game good while excluding as much as possible of what made it troublesome and possibly even add a few things which can only be done in a computer game.



Christof -> (9/23/2002 11:59:34 PM)

I fully agree with uncle toby.
I bought EIA many years ago and was - due to a lack of opponents - never able to play it FtF. Nevertheless the game has always been one of my favorites.

I think you really face a challenge at Matrix to work this one out as a PC game.
Planning and diplomatic interacting will be very hard to teach to an AI.
AND: there are numerous EIA web-sites all over the world. Many many rule fixes, house rules and so on have been written and published over the internet. My point is: the original system was far from flawless, maybe some points need a fix.


All the best,
Christof



Paul Vebber -> (9/24/2002 1:31:52 AM)

The basic idea is to do a pretty straightforward port of the board game as the "foundation" - realizing that no AI is going to be as comepitive as a group of human opponants - and options for "alternative rules" being implemented as options.



Repo Man -> (9/24/2002 2:13:00 AM)

No AI? Hmm, this could be quite a revolution. Imagine selling a game without AI. Maybe this could be the first true computer wargame afterall. Lack of AI never hurt AH, and Stars! remains quite popular without a viable AI.

If you, or anyone, would like, I had worked out some house rules for the politics. I don't know if I even have them anymore, as I haven't played or looked at the game in nearly a decade. (The cost of a real job, wife, kids and lack of opponents). If they have been lost to the ravages of time, I probably reconstruct them to some degree.

This house rule assumed either two or three players (Fr, GB and Ru as the third) and was designed to have the other major powers act more or less in accordance with history, with all things being equal. It assumed a perpetual war between France and England.

I also tried to eliminate as many game quirks as I could. The two which come to mind first are England's turn one attacks on Portugal and Denmark to secure the fleets. I've never seen a game where following history with these two countries made any sense whatsoever, which to me, is the earmark of a good game design.

I should of course, reread the latest verion of Empires in Harm, as my hunch is Michael T. dealt with these issues.

Now I have to work extra hard to make some free time for next year.



ASHBERY76 -> (9/24/2002 2:43:10 AM)

This game better have good A.I most studies suggest that in games like these most players prefer playing against the computer.



Paul Vebber -> (9/24/2002 3:09:13 AM)

[QUOTE]"no AI is going to be as competitive as a group of human opponants[/QUOTE]

...while sitting there waiting fo a non-existent AI to make a move is certainly no fun compared to playing a group of humans, what I meant was that there is no way to make a "computer opponant" that can interact as a group of real flesh and blood opponants.

"Good" in AI terms is subjective and universally based on how it takes to learn to beat it. If you are quick and it only takes you a few games to "beat the AI' then the AI "sucks" if it gives you a challenge for a few dozen games and periodically does something unexpected that throws you for a loop, its "good".



David Heath -> (9/24/2002 3:18:55 AM)

The game will not be 100% port since some items will need to change to allow it to work well on the PC. ADG, Mike Treasure and Matrix will all be working together to make this come together.

David



Uncle Toby -> AIn't no friend of mine (9/24/2002 3:35:03 AM)

The only real value of AI in a game like this is as a sort of tutorial. Playing against AI is not so much a game as a kind of puzzle, though I guess a wide enough definition of games could include puzzles.

The problem is a game cannot be all things to all people. It must specialize to some degree and some goals are diametrically opposed. As you approach one you must recede from the other. For a strategy game to be good for people, it generally must be bad for AI.

Strategy games are about competition in some mental ability and while there are many areas where AI can simulate human abilities in a superior way, these are usually the least interesting for people.
Here is a list of a few that come to mind by way of example

Diplomacy -- Computer poor to useless

Pattern recognition -- Computer poor to useless

Bluff -- Computer poor to useless

Prioritizing -- Computer poor

Imagination -- Depends, the closer you get to an open environment (the possibility of real imaginative thinking) the worse the computer is.

Advanced planning/contingency -- The more formal and structured, the more competitive the computer is

Calculation of outcome/probability -- Computer superior

Reaction speed -- Computer superior

Hand-eye coordination -- Computer superior

I agree it’s probably true, most people play against the computer which is why most computer game rely so heavily on the last four items on my list and some of the most popular competitive games confine themselves to the last three. These are not, however, what you’d normally call strategy games.

There are so many shooting games and real-time games, number crunching games and games which substitute busy-work for decision making, it would be refreshing at least to have something which didn’t sacrifice real strategic play just to have a game where the AI could compete.



Paul Vebber -> (9/24/2002 3:43:03 AM)

[QUOTE]The game will not be 100% port...[/QUOTE]

That is what I meant by "pretty straightforward" meaning that those who played the board game would recognize and feel comfortable with it...tis is not going to a "compter Squad Leader" thats use a name on a product that bears no resemblence whatsoever to its namesake situation ;)

THe idea of an "exact" port has been pretty well proven to be a universal failure :rolleyes:



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125