Start with the basics

Start with the basics (Full Version)

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

Message

YohanTM2 -> Start with the basics (10/12/2002 1:13:09 AM)
I really hope that the opportunity to play the "classic" (if you will) version of EiA will exist. I agree that there are many great options available that can enhance the game but the ability to compete with the original should also be available. Similtaneous movement is a great optiton for most wargames but may prove a challenge with EiA. The inherent and important ability of France and England to select their movement positioning is a strong benefit. I am really looking forward to finally getting a 7 player game happening :)

Uncle Toby -> Victorian Sci-Fi (10/12/2002 8:26:12 PM)
I guess I see the initiative system as another relic, if anything worse than the supply one. Certainly it gives England and France a necessary edge but couldn’t this effect be achieved by some other mechanism more appropriate to the computer? What you call ‘rules’ like the movement initiative, I call ‘mechanisms’ because it is a more accurate term, implying as it does that these systems have or should have a purpose in the game, they are designed to achieve some result. It is the result that matters not how you get there. Preserving such a relic is like putting a coal burning stove on the space shuttle to keep the astronauts warm.

VictorH -> Simultaneous? (10/13/2002 10:44:14 AM)
If this game has simultaneous movement or real-time it won't be the original game and I won't buy it!

jnier -> (10/13/2002 11:30:03 AM)
I cast my vote stongly in favor of simultaneous movement. I am a great admirer of EIA, but not a regular player of EIA because PBEM games just take too long. The simultaneous movement will greatly speed play. IMHO, it will also add realism as well.

pasternakski -> Re: Simultaneous? (10/13/2002 11:49:05 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VictorH [B]If this game has simultaneous movement or real-time it won't be the original game and I won't buy it! [/B][/QUOTE] I agree with you if "real time" means that this is an arcade-style game. I doubt that it is. "Real time," I think, from Matrix's previous designs, would mean allowing the game to cycle through turns until you command it to stop and let you update your orders. I don't think I have a big problem with that, unless the game is designed under the assumption that this is the default. I want diplomatic, strategic, and operational control for each turn (I believe that the intention is quarterly turns). If I can't have that, I don't want this game, either. Simultaneous movement is another matter. As many other posters have pointed out (often before this became a "recreate EiA as a computer game" project), SM may be a necessity for a computer game, particularly one intended for multi-player PBEM. Uncle Toby makes a good point, I think, in suggesting that the initiative effect can be preserved in a more sophisticated, computer-based mechanic. I am prepared to trust the designers to come up with a satisfactory translation of EiA into a computer game. Matrix and 2by3 haven't let me down yet, and staff comments so far lead me to believe that they are not going to follow slavishly the design dictates of the print game, which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, has its strengths and weaknesses, and possesses characteristics that require modification in becoming a successful electronic, rather than a paper-and-cardboard, simulation. To be honest with you, I would rather have seen an adaptation of the old Avalon Hill title "War and Peace" than EiA. Still, my interest in acquiring a competently designed strategic-level Napoleonic game is so strong that I intend to buy this one anyway.

Uncle Toby -> Mad Developers (10/13/2002 8:40:13 PM)
As Pasternakski said, real-time, is a very bad mechanism for strategy games. One of the worst faults in ‘Europa Universalis’ is their insane inclusion of real-time movement. The only value of real-time is to force a decision, unfortunately it is inevitable that at some point many decisions will be required at once (or that advantages will be gained by doing things manually) and when this happens decisions become reactions, the game becomes less strategy than arcade. Simultaneous input, simultaneous resolution would be the best system for a computer version of EiA in my opinion. I could suggest several ways to maintain the initiative edge, though they’d have to be play-tested to determine if they were sufficient.

David Heath -> (10/14/2002 12:08:31 AM)
Hi Guys We never ever said real time. We are working on the design and how we plan on do it.... before you all make up your minds to buy it or drop it give us some time. Remember we are EIA / EIH fans. David Heath

pasternakski -> (10/14/2002 1:45:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath [B]Hi Guys We never ever said real time. We are working on the design and how we plan on do it.... before you all make up your minds to buy it or drop it give us some time. Remember we are EIA / EIH fans. David Heath [/B][/QUOTE] Well, David, I don't think anybody here is making up his mind about buying or not buying the game at this point. I just see guys expressing their preferences in hope that they will be heard. As I said earlier, I trust the design team to come up with a winner, and I plan to obtain it and give it a shot no matter what the (sometimes misleading) description says it is. The primary points of discussion here and on other threads have been: -How close to an exact replica of EiA should the game be? -Is simultaneous movement a desirable approach to game play mechanics? -What should the AI be like, considering the heavy emphasis on politics, statesmanship, and negotiation that will be a major component of the game? -What is the nature of "real time" play, and how desirable would this be as a fundamental element of the game mechanics? This is probably not a comprehensive list, but it covers most of our major areas of speculation, I think. Besides, David, other than playing UV, PW, WiR, and SPWAW, we ain't got nothin' to do but speculate ...

JParton -> (10/14/2002 3:47:36 PM)
"I guess I see the initiative system as another relic, if anything worse than the supply one. Certainly it gives England and France a necessary edge but couldn’t this effect be achieved by some other mechanism more appropriate to the computer? " *Such as?

Uncle Toby -> Where do you want to go today? (10/14/2002 8:21:10 PM)
There are at lot of possibilities, far too many to list much less explain adequately, but I can outline the process of arriving at one and perhaps suggest a few lines to pursue. Of course any change would have to be tested to see how it interacts with other areas of the game. The first thing is to analyze exactly what effect the current mechanism has, (this would lead to a very long dissertation as well). Decide, then which of these effects are important or desirable and if other effects not in the original might also be good to add in this area. I’ll concentrate on the last move/first move effect since that seems to be the one most people are concerned about losing. The most important effect of LMFM is to give the player a wider range of options to meet, avoid or make attacks. This could be simulated or even improved in a simultaneous input/output computer mechanism. First, of course, the player could still call his move in a SISO system. The computer would simply execute it in that order, the extra intelligence would be missed out as the player would not get to see his opponent’s first move before deciding his but this could be more than made up by giving additional types of orders other than simply ‘move here’. You could have an addendum to a move order of ‘avoid’ or ‘seek’ combat which would allow the computer to ‘react’ your move in that direction. This would open a lot of interesting options as you could rate each player, or even each commander for initiative, not just France and England. A more radical departure would be to give corps and army commanders elaborate personalities and to make campaign orders more general, letting them handle movement and combat as they see fit. This might be a little too much like watching the computer play a game for some people, but if done right it would loose nothing of value in EiA and would open options of gaming as yet unexplored. Think ‘The Sims’ meets ‘Europa Universalis’ with turns.

Repo Man -> (10/14/2002 8:28:55 PM)
Regarding how close to the "basics" the game is intended to be, here is what Matrix says: [I]The computer version will allow players to play the "Classic Edition" and an "Enhanced Edition." The Enhanced Edition will add many new features to the game. Gamers will be able to pick and chose the options they want to play. [/I] So it seem Matrix is one step ahead of this "debate." There is going to be an EiA which is pretty much the board game. There is going to to be an EiA with additional features, probably dealing with the same requests brought up here. So it looks like the game will have options to make nearly everyone happy. :)

strategy -> (10/17/2002 6:57:32 PM)
Get a grip. Is there really anyone who is seriously going to say: "Well, it's not exactly like the boardgame Empires in Arms, so therefore I will not buy it because it can not possibly be a good game." Yeah, right. Aside from which, Empires in Arms - while at core a great game - suffers from a huge number of design flaws. Which sort of begs the question with relation to the "Classic Mode": What's the point? That we will now have a flawed game with all the additional restrictions and limitations that a computer interface will inevitably bring to the game? What a wonderful prospect. :rolleyes: Sorry to play the devil's advocate here, but I really think the team ought to concentrate on building the best possible COMPUTR game based on the Empires in Arms mechanisms - not try to port a boardgame to the computer. Porting boardgames faithfully only works if you're dealing with simply, primarily non-player interaction games. EiA is neither simple, nor non-interactive.

YohanTM2 -> (10/17/2002 11:17:55 PM)
Sorry "Strategy" you are wrong. There are many people who played EiA that thought it was/is a great game. As with any game there is the opportunity to make changes/additions which some will like and others will not. That is the purpose of options. I really don't care if you feel the game is flawed, if so don't play. If you build the original (or as close as is feasible) with options you offer the best of both worlds, not just your personal biases.

jnier -> (10/18/2002 1:53:30 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yohan [B] I really don't care if you feel the game is flawed, if so don't play. If you build the original (or as close as is feasible) with options you offer the best of both worlds, not just your personal biases. [/B][/QUOTE] I see your point Yohan, but LOTS of people feel that the full campaign game of "Classic Computer EIA" will be simply unplayable if it is ported [I]exactly[/I] as is. I'd like to see it tweaked to make easier (or at least possible) to complete the full campaign game. For example, will people have to send separate emails to input their choices of battle chits everytime a battle takes place - like in the boardgame version. A mechanic like that surely has to go...even in the "Classic EIA" version of the computer game.

Uncle Toby -> A game is not an equation (10/18/2002 1:59:08 AM)
Well, Yohan, you’re not exactly’right’ yourself. As I said before people play games for different reasons and so not everyone wants the same thing from a game. For some people EiA aims at the perfect mix of history and strategy and the exact type of contest of skill they want. From the point of view of intent EiA may be perfect for some people. In realizing that intention is where EiA falls short and any thoughtful person can see that. .A board game simply cannot do some things a computer game can, to refuse to make use of the computer’s potential except in a narrowly focused way is shortsighted. Where do ‘options’ end and revisions begin? Some valuable improvements might be incompatible with the use of options. I remember the first game of EiA I ever played, as Britain. I realized that provided there were enough ships in port it was worth it to mass the British navy and run the guns. Before the French could react to disperse I sunk their entire fleet, then did the same to the Spanish, unbalancing the whole game. The rules were later changed to prevent this ridiculous outcome but that revision was unsatisfactory in other ways, it was just a different approximation. A computer could come much closer to the ideal..

warlon -> (10/18/2002 2:23:48 AM)
you can't just run into a 90gun port and hope to smash the entire French fleet with whatever fleet England start with. There will be more English losses than French losses.

Uncle Toby -> The point (10/18/2002 5:13:05 AM)
Actually I think the break-point was 16 enemy ships, this was twelve years ago under the rule published with the first AH version. The English lose as much as the French at 16 but they also capture a few so they come out ahead. As I recall the entire campaign involved two attacks on the French and two on the Spanish, the English fleet was reduced by half but the French and Spanish were exterminated and incapable of recovering as a practical matter. Also my VP’s went through the roof. I think one of the first things they did to stop this was increase the number of guns in the port defenses, later the naval rules were changed. My point is under the new rules ‘cutting out’ expeditions became impossible. The naval rules remained unrealistic and hence valuable neither as a re-creation of history or as a good strategy game mechanic. A computer version could do a much better job on both counts but it would have to dump the naval rules completely and institute a new system. This would be better for everyone no matter why they like the game.

Hoplosternum -> (10/18/2002 6:38:39 PM)
It seems clear from this site that the game will feature Classic EiA as Repo man posted. I for one was not too pleased when Matrix announced that this game was going to be EiA because I believe it has a number of problems that make the Grand Campaign game rather unplayable or at least unenjoyable which amounts to the same thing. But as I currently have no computer strategy level Napoleonic game and after this I will have one I will still buy :) Some people keep saying - just put changes in as options. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be possible in many cases. Changes to the manpower or money of provinces, leader values or combat chits may all be possible to a degree. But the AI will be designed based on principles about the victory conditions, movement system and combat system the game uses. If this is going to be EiA the chances of having options that radically change any of these are going to be slim as it would take a major reworking of the AI.

Repo Man -> (10/18/2002 9:16:57 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoplosternum [B] But the AI will be designed based on principles about the victory conditions, movement system and combat system the game uses. If this is going to be EiA the chances of having options that radically change any of these are going to be slim as it would take a major reworking of the AI. [/B][/QUOTE] Seems to me the AI need only be designed for the enhanced version since some have indicated they won't buy the game if there are any changes from the boardgame. As there is no AI in the board version, why include it for the classic? ;) Unless of course, the computer version should be an improvement of the AH version of EiA. And BTW, I have;t heard many complaints how the AH version of EiA gutted the French. Does anyone remember the original French Corp sizes?

Repo Man -> Re: The point (10/18/2002 9:23:42 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uncle Toby [B]... The naval rules remained unrealistic and hence valuable neither as a re-creation of history or as a good strategy game mechanic. A computer version could do a much better job on both counts but it would have to dump the naval rules completely and institute a new system. This would be better for everyone no matter why they like the game. [/B][/QUOTE] Just curious, are you talking about the EIA naval rules or the EiH naval rules? I have never played with the latter so I don't have a feel for how the work in game, but they look as if the attempted to resolve some of the problems with the standard EiA naval rules.

strategy -> (10/19/2002 12:15:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yohan [B]Sorry "Strategy" you are wrong. There are many people who played EiA that thought it was/is a great game. As with any game there is the opportunity to make changes/additions which some will like and others will not. That is the purpose of options. I really don't care if you feel the game is flawed, if so don't play. If you build the original (or as close as is feasible) with options you offer the best of both worlds, not just your personal biases. [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry Yohan, but obviously you didn't get my point. The point is that - no matter how faithful you try to be to classic EIA a porting of Empires in Arms to the computer will not be the same as the boardgame. Unless you are building this within a virtual reality world, the computer version will always have certain limitations that the boardgame does not have. A simple example: one of the important gameplay elements of Empires in Arms is the free flowing diplomacy among the players. Russia and France agreeing to partition up Austria as 1809 comes round. Great Brittain offering powerful subsidies and offering to look the other way during the Russian campaign against Sweden if the Russians will desist. And the other nations chipping in sideways comments, offers, bribes etc. to muddle up the discussion according to their various agendas. This sort of vital games negotiation will never be able to happen in the computer game. Another example: Combined Moves. In a boardgame you can talk to the player with whom you intend to combine, explain why it is a good idea, and then do it. Good luck trying to get this to work with a computer-controlled player. A perfect porting of a complicated diplomacy-based boardgame like EiA simply isn't possible, at least not if it is to be a computer game, rather than a PBEM server. So: 1. The classic version still won't be the "real" EiA. 2. If the classic EiA isn't going to be exactly like the boardgame version, then why waste time making it? 3. The computer allows for significant enhancements to the game. Why not make use of those capabilities?

Uncle Toby -> Old times (10/19/2002 3:19:18 AM)
Repoman, This was EiA in 1990, we played five games more or less through and started several more. The game where I wiped out the Franco-Hispanic navy was one we adjourned. I haven’t seen EiH. In 1993 our group pitched together and bought a six station LAN to play Civnet and since then we’ve been dedicated to computer games so I’m something of an expert on multiplayer computer strategy games. It’s rather like being a fan of some sports team legendary for losing. I recognize the market for multiplayer computer games is small and so gets all the attention of an afterthought but the number of near misses is so great I can only think the designers have got their heads screwed on backwards or there is something about programming I don’t understand that prevents good game design. That or it’s some version of planned obsolescence designed to sell more games. Buy, learn, discard, buy. We play games primarily for a contest of skill, though we are also history buffs. We each have quite different personalities and abilities and would ideally like to compete in a game with as many channels to use our abilities as possible. What we see from the designers is the same tired formulas in shiny new packages, squandering the potential of the computer. Even when an exception occurs, Sid Meier’s ‘Gettysburg’ for example, one of the few games which really had a lot going for it (the only game which ever used real-time in a constructive way) the designers don’t seem to know why they hit it right, at least not if their design notes and interviews are anything to go by. SMG is one of the few old games we still play and even it has shortcomings which make no sense except as thoughtless or careless design.

strategy -> (10/19/2002 9:05:37 PM)
I think it is actually extremely difficult to design a good multi-player computer strategy game (not classifying "pure" RTS games as such - Starcraft being an excellent multi-player game, but hardly strategic), at least if you want to have it being playable in single-player at the same time. Often, game mechanics that are best in a single player situation are not ideal for the multi-player game (e.g., alternating turns). There are a few notable exceptions though: Stars! for instance is/was an excellent multi-player strategy game. Simultanous turns (so no waiting for players), short games (depending on setup of course, but a normal game rarely exceeded 50 turns), and lots of in-game automation to reduce micro-management. There are weaknesses in the game design, but none that relate to the multi-player aspects, IMO.

Uncle Toby -> Perhaps we'll give 'Stars!' a second chance (10/20/2002 4:32:26 AM)
We looked at ‘Stars!’ but passed it because it didn’t seem to differ much from the standard 4x model, which didn’t seem to offer much in the way of a strategy game. Strategy games are about decisions, the quality of the game is to a large degree dependent on the quality of the decisions. By quality I mean how much skill can be applied to the decision. Too often decisions in strategy games are either a guess or ultimately simplistic. Most games of the 4x type require important decisions to be made before there is any criteria on which to apply skill. Generally hours of gameplay will only call for one or two really good quality decisions, usually a choice to switch strategies or when to start a war. When multiplay is involved there are more quality decisions and strategies because you can play the people as well as the game but when everyone is competing for the same goal the game can fall into the problems of unstructured interaction. The goal of strategy game design should be to turn decisions from guesses to educated estimations and to keep a complete understanding just beyond the reach of the mind. Many games are interesting during the learning phase when the player who catches on quickest can make the best decisions but eventually the formulas are learned and the game becomes stale. This is what we discovered about games of the ’Civ’ or ‘Age of Empires’ variety. In SMG they avoided many of these faults by graphically presenting a massive amount of information in a way that was easy to take in but impossible to process completely forcing the player to decide what information was key. The arcade affects of real-time were contained by giving a limited number of things to do. The negative effects of multiplay were eliminated by teams which could be balanced to allow for all skills.

strategy -> Stars! (10/20/2002 6:52:43 AM)
Rather off-topic, but just a brief comment. As you say, Stars! is a classic 4X game. Back when I first encountered it, I was fairly dismissive as well; but I think it actually has a lot going for it in the strategy department. For one it has a detailed ressource model; which again means that planets have different strategic values - rather than just being amorphous blobs of income like in 99% of the other 4X games. Resources have to be shipped from planet to planet, so there will be transport routes and chokepoints that need to be defended. And because there is a good deal of automation available in the game, this aspect doesn't drown in excessive micro-management. There is a fairly complex intelligence game involved as well, with various levels of scanners, stealth systems, etc., making for some very interesting problems when deciding when and where to attack. Unlike most strategic games, it isn't enough to simply gather the hugest possible fleet and then just kill, krush & destroy - offensives required careful preparation with supply ships and follow up waves, intelligence gathering, and above all careful timing. Of course the game also had some weaknesses; one of them being the fairly unbalanced races (some of them being waaay more powerful than others), but we got around this by restricting players from picking certain powers. And perhaps it would grow stale in time; unfortunately I no longer have time to play with the others (some of whom are still participating in Stars! games after 4 years). To get back on topic, this was a game that was clearly designed specifically for multi-player. And I think there are definitely important differences between single player and multi-player games - this is something I've run into while working on Imperium as well.

Chiteng -> re: Movement (11/14/2002 7:56:00 PM)
The movement sequencing in the original game was a VITAL part of the simulation. Example: French move first, England lands an army at Brest(after making sure that Nappy cant possibly force march to Brest in one turn) Now French wave moving First. British either evacuate or risk a French double move that may find the first 5 corp + Nappy outside Brest. That would likely at BEST severely attrit the BEF. The Brits get to do the same with their fleet. This goes a LONG way towards simulating the very real fear that all nations had.

Chiteng -> re: Bleh Stars! (11/15/2002 2:22:54 AM)
I play VGAPlanets4 and it does me just fine

Reknoy -> (11/26/2002 2:06:55 AM)
I think a lot of the comments made in this post are (and perhaps this is unavoidable) terribly broad. I agree with those that state that no "port" of a board game could be 100% realistic. However, you open up a world of worms (emphasis on being more than just a can) when you suggest wholesale rewriting of the rules. At some point you can't call the game the same anymore? Just make a Napoloenic war game on a similar scale and market it to everyone who had too many problems with EiA. I have been to several AvalonCons and have (at one point in my life) played numerous PBeM games. I love EiA and live with some flaws and come to terms with others (interpretations, etc.). I would say that a faithful adherence (as a general rule) is the way to go. Same goes for graphics. Besides, only a chump would let the Brits run the guns on 'em. ;-) - Reknoy

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375