November Update

November Update (Full Version)

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

Message

Marshall Ellis -> November Update (11/5/2002 12:26:23 PM)
Hello all: Just a small note to let you guys know where we are. We're still plotting through the new map's areas, nations, unit locations and provinces. We're also doing some preliminary testing of the new map with new units so there has been progress. I know it's hard to see that from your end but believe me ... we're moving! It looks like the default scenario will start in 1788 so our map and country setup will be a bit different than the typical 1805 setup. What are your thoughts for this start time? Thank you

denisonh -> (11/5/2002 12:46:29 PM)
Once again, thanks for the bones Marshall! Interesting having such an early start time, although I tend to favor the 1805. I certainly hope that 1805 remains an option for the grand campaign.

sol_invictus -> (11/5/2002 1:21:03 PM)
Keep on trucking! I too was surprised about the early start date. I would think that 1800 would be more appropriate since this is when Napoleon's rise toward Emperor really took off. Before the Second Coalition, I consider the conflict in Europe as the War of the French Recolution. I date the Napoleonic Wars as starting with Napoleon's second Italian Campaign but certainly no earlier than his first. That's just me though. Begin when you will; its all good.

Le Tondu -> Excellent timing! (11/6/2002 12:01:51 AM)
I was just wondering what was new and... I applaud your earlier starting date. 1805 is way, WAY too late in the "game" to begin. That is plain. Starting earlier than 1805 will certainly expand EiA (as was promised) and make it much more fun. The Napoleonic Era IMHO, covers not just the time of the First Empire, but also that of the Revolution and the Consulate as well. (You just can't leave out the Battle of Marengo, the Egyptian Campaign, or the first Italian Campaign. Some of Napoleon's finest efforts took place during this time.) :) 1788 will surely be a welcomed challenge. Go for it guys. I question the end date of 1815. Historically, we all know what happened, yet this is a game where we will be able to have outcomes that are different than what happened historically. I recommend 1821 (the historical death of Napoleon), because we would be able to play a situation where Napoleon would not be defeated in 1815. I know the game has to end sometime, but 1821 is a good compromise and will further expand EiA. I know that Brit players will cringe and rail against this, but it does make sense when you consider the strategic freedom that the game gives the player. With open ended play, the ending ought to be open ended as well. Keep up the good work and God's speed.

sol_invictus -> (11/6/2002 12:48:06 AM)
I agree Le Tondu, 1821 would be a good end date. Screw what the British say!:D

U2 -> (11/6/2002 1:09:56 AM)
Hi I'm very happy with the fact that the game will start earlier. Thanks for the update Marshall Dan

Marshall Ellis -> Thank you and 1821??? Interesting (11/6/2002 2:59:07 AM)
Hello all: Thank you all for your support. What does everybody think about extending to 1821? I have not thought of this but it would be easy to do? We could go to 2002 but I'm thinking that Napoloeonic tactics wouldn't work very well against the M1A1 tank (hahaha). Anyway, let me know... Thank you

eg0master -> (11/6/2002 5:10:55 AM)
Starting in 1788 and ending in 1821 sounds great but in a perfect world there would be a possibility to start and end the campain at any year (or even month). Starting at 1788 and 1805 is a minimum I think. And ending at 1815 or 1821 is another minimum requirement.

jnier -> Re: Thank you and 1821??? Interesting (11/6/2002 8:51:34 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis [B]Hello all: Thank you all for your support. What does everybody think about extending to 1821? I have not thought of this but it would be easy to do? We could go to 2002 but I'm thinking that Napoloeonic tactics wouldn't work very well against the M1A1 tank (hahaha). Anyway, let me know... Thank you [/B][/QUOTE] I also think that 1821 is a better ending date than 1815. Regarding the begining date, I personally would prefer that the game begin in November 1799 - when Napoleon first became Consul. If the game is based on the premise that the French player is essentially Napoleon, then this is when that game should begin. Before this time Napoleon was not the head of state. Another logical beginning point (which would allow for maximum diplomatic flexibility) would be March 1802 - that was the month the Treaty of Ameins was signed and as a result France and Britian were at peace. IIRC all of Europe was at peace then. If the game starts with no pre-existing wars, players could really make any alliance or declare any ware they wished to. Regardless of which beginning and end dates are used, I hope that the effect of different dates on game balance and victory conditions is carefully considered. I know that Empire in Harm used different dates than EiA - do any EiH players recall how the different time frames effected gameplay?

jnier -> Re: Thank you and 1821??? Interesting (11/6/2002 8:56:41 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis [B]Hello all: Thank you all for your support. What does everybody think about extending to 1821? I have not thought of this but it would be easy to do? We could go to 2002 but I'm thinking that Napoloeonic tactics wouldn't work very well against the M1A1 tank (hahaha). Anyway, let me know... Thank you [/B][/QUOTE] I also think that 1821 is a better ending date than 1815. Regarding the begining date, I personally would prefer that the game begin in November 1799 - when Napoleon first became Consul. If the game is based on the premise that the French player is essentially Napoleon, then this is when that game should begin. Before this time Napoleon was not the head of state. Another logical beginning point (which would allow for maximum diplomatic flexibility) would be March 1802 - that was the month the Treaty of Ameins was signed and as a result France and Britian were at peace. IIRC all of Europe was at peace then. If the game starts with no pre-existing wars, players could really make any alliance or declare any ware they wished to. Regardless of which beginning and end dates are used, I hope that the effect of different dates on game balance and victory conditions is carefully considered. I know that Empire in Harm used different dates than EiA - do any EiH players recall how the different time frames effected gameplay?

YohanTM2 -> (11/8/2002 8:12:23 PM)
I like the extended start and finish as long as options for a few different scenarios are available. (I'm sure they will be) With regard to the map do the borders have to be hard coded? Hopefully you can change them for each scenario.

von Curow -> (11/9/2002 4:10:04 AM)
I think the idea of starting the game earlier than the "traditional" 1805 is stellar! I would have said 1789, but 1788 is just as good. It will add a lot of replayability to the game to be able to try out different starting dates and have that many more scenarios. Ending later than 1815 is a good idea, as well. These games do not follow history, so why should they have to end at the traditional date? 1821 is probably a good choice then... though we have to avoid making the PBEM games too long or we will all face the dreaded "drop off" as people lose interest in a particular game and cease wanting to take their turns. This reminds me... will there be an option to reassign control of a power to the AI after a game has started? It could come in handy for just such instances.

Josans -> (11/9/2002 4:55:53 AM)
1821 would be a perfect date to finnish the game. The different early dates could be included as scenarios, so the players can choose when start the game.

Le Tondu -> 2002 end date? (11/11/2002 9:51:28 AM)
Why stop there? Could we have a scenario where Napoleon is rescued by time travelers from our future and then he can time travel back to 1812 and give phasers to his Old Guard? ;) But seriously Marshall, thank you for being so open minded and at least considering a later ending than 1815. :) :) :)

mars -> Re: Re: Thank you and 1821??? Interesting (11/13/2002 11:47:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jnier [B] I also think that 1821 is a better ending date than 1815. Regarding the begining date, I personally would prefer that the game begin in November 1799 - when Napoleon first became Consul. If the game is based on the premise that the French player is essentially Napoleon, then this is when that game should begin. Before this time Napoleon was not the head of state.[/B] I agree with these starting dates, certainly if the premise is that the French player is Napoleon. As for the end date, I think it could be more open ended instead of 1821. For those military experts - when did the Napoleonic style of warfare end ?? was it in the 1860's - US civil war times?? Obviously if you extend the game too far then technological questions will start to be asked, and I guess that is an entirely different issue.

Reiryc -> (11/16/2002 11:02:42 AM)
Another vote for 1821 here.... Reiryc

Marshall Ellis -> 1821 (11/16/2002 11:14:12 PM)
Hello all: Would the 1821 date really give the French a last DECENT chance? It seems that most of you guys like the 1821 end date but I'm curious as to what dynamic this would give to the game? I'm thinking that GBR and RUS would have their way with the world but somebody tell me what their view of the game from 1815 to 1821 would be??? Thank you

Le Tondu -> Re: 1821 (11/17/2002 6:30:26 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis [B]Hello all: Would the 1821 date really give the French a last DECENT chance? It seems that most of you guys like the 1821 end date but I'm curious as to what dynamic this would give to the game? I'm thinking that GBR and RUS would have their way with the world but somebody tell me what their view of the game from 1815 to 1821 would be??? Thank you [/B][/QUOTE] Marshall, Isn't answering that question kind-of hard to do since gameplay is going to be so open ended? What could the situation of the world be when you consider all of the different situations that diplomacy or a feat of arms could bring about? Must the game be a replay of history --all of the time? Couldn't different alliances/ coalitions be formed by the players? In the single player mode against the AI, won't it be possible for the player to have successful diplomacy that runs contrary to history? Why not have the 1821 end date be optional? For those that don't like it, have it so it can be turned off with 1815 being the end date. IMHO, the more options that you put into this game, the greater it will be.

Sir Neil -> 1821 (11/17/2002 7:45:24 PM)
Hi all it would be good if the game did go on to 1821 but then you could not call it 'the napoleonic wars' or 'wars of napoleon' because they ended in 1815 and i suppose this game should be 'historical' questions from people at my website- 1. what will the battles be like? Europa Universalis or other? 2. how will armies march across Europe? E U again or different? A coloured bar? 3. will there be naval battles? or just on land? 4. what will the game turns be? monthly? yearly? 5. would someone from Martix like to come to my forums and answer their questions? Thanks [url]www.horseandmusket.co.uk[/url]

Le Tondu -> Re: 1821 (11/18/2002 3:27:27 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sir Neil [B]Hi all it would be good if the game did go on to 1821 but then you could not call it 'the napoleonic wars' or 'wars of napoleon' because they ended in 1815 and i suppose this game should be 'historical'..... [/B][/QUOTE] Welcome Sir Neal. You ought to get the answers to your questions here: http://www.matrixgames.com/Games/NapoleonicWars/features.asp Hmmmm, now with standards like that, this game (with it's open-ended strategic level of play) will cease being "historical" the minute game play deviates from the historical record! Heavens, that would most likely happen in the opening seconds. The title is "Empires in Arms" and with an ending date of 1821, one could still apply "Napoleon" or "Napoleonic" to the sub-title. IMO, after a certain point, all european land warfare during (and some even say far after) Napoleon's lifetime is accurately labeled "Napoleonic." Afterall, our hobby is named after him. :)

pasternakski -> (11/18/2002 3:41:06 AM)
I prefer an ending date later than 1815 because you can't assume that Napoleon was defeated and exiled. His vitality could have extended several years beyond the historical dates. If he had not wasted the French army in Russia in 1812, lost marginally at Leipzig, been deposed in 1814, and lost again in his 100 day return in 1815, the entire fabric of European history would have been different - and Napoleon's legacy much altered. And isn't this kind of possibility why we play simulation games in the first place?

Sir Neil -> (11/24/2002 6:58:29 PM)
you could always extend the end date to 1856, and assume that Napoleon III had carried on his uncles European war.:)

pasternakski -> (11/24/2002 10:13:42 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sir Neil [B]you could always extend the end date to 1856, and assume that Napoleon III had carried on his uncles European war.:) [/B][/QUOTE] Actually, I'm just suggesting that the game ought to end, as the Napoleonic wars did historically, with the demise or final deposition of Buonaparte. The possibility of a return from first exile ought to be built in. What happens in Europe after Napoleon's exit is an interesting game subject, but, of course, would be another game ...

Le Tondu -> (11/25/2002 3:45:03 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B] Actually, I'm just suggesting that the game ought to end, as the Napoleonic wars did historically, with the demise or final deposition of Buonaparte. The possibility of a return from first exile ought to be built in. What happens in Europe after Napoleon's exit is an interesting game subject, but, of course, would be another game ... [/B][/QUOTE] I agree with you pasternakski, it wouldn't be much fun to continue to play after Napoleon's death and it is true, the game HAS to end sometime. The advent of railroads and technological advancements in artillery by the French after the Napoleonic Epoch (just to name two) make playing beyond 1821 a different piece of cake altogether. I also agree that a possibility of a return after an initial exile is a must, by why does the Emperor have to be exiled at all? :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And now for something comepletely different.... Gee, I wonder if this game will model the deaths of commanders in battle? Is it possible for a Napoleon or a Wellington to get captured or killed in battle? I know the the level of play is strategic, but those sorts of things did happen.

mogami -> Leaders (11/25/2002 4:20:47 AM)
Hi, Killing Wellington would be a disater for the English, however he was not the head of state. Heads of state (the players tha contol them) that risk themselves to impact combat must be prepared for the ultimate disater. There should be a very heavy penalty for losing a Nations leader in combat. (Not every Nations leader is worth risking in combat) Napoleon must not be immune but since he was on many fields be harder to injure. I do not want to attempt to suggest the specifics of such rules. (I'm a chicken I'll just say they need considering") The type of goverment for a nation will help decide if the "Head of State" impacts combat. But if such a leader is lost that nation should be under severe restictions (minus victory points)

pasternakski -> (11/25/2002 7:28:42 AM)
I completely agree, le Tondu, there is no imperative reason for Napoleon to be exiled - it's just one condition under which the game could end and victory tallied (equally if he dies of food poisoning or Josephine's dagger). If he is, though, there ought to be some mechanism allowing his return, under certain circumstances and conditions. When you consider that Nappy's return for his last 100 days happened nearly 190 years ago and still captures the imagination of many (including all of us who love to play Napoleonic era games), EiA ought to accommodate that magic. I know what you mean. If in 1805 Napoleon catches the odd cannonball in the midriff, thereby separating arse from appetite, carrying on as the French loses a lot (if not all) of its appeal. Oh, well, open up another bag of pretzels, crack another Labatt's, and game on, sez I. I also agree that this game just can't go on beyond the early 19th century, for exactly the reasons you name. The world was changing. Warfare had changed in ways Napoleon didn't understand even while he lived (and look at what happened when nations tried to wage Napoleonic-style offensive warfare after the era had ended - even up through WWI). Mogami, you amaze me. Not only are you just about always right on over on the UV threads, you show up here and act intelligent, too. Renaissance homme par excellence, n'est ce pas? "Mogami de la bonne chance," oui?

DoomedMantis -> (11/25/2002 8:51:48 AM)
Mogami doesn't sleep

Reknoy -> Leaders -- Let's Hear it for Lannes (11/26/2002 2:32:26 AM)
I love the idea of expanding the timing of the game -- the variant "Vive La Revolution" is a personal favorite (so much more level vis a vis the overall playing field). I just hope that the game includes more in the way of leaders. That's the one major area (gasp, did he say this) where I could see a divergence from the "classic" game (this means something if you know how much of a purist I am about EiA). Having read a lot of history concerning this era, there are many leaders (like Lannes) who were awesome and could be represented. There was an effort a while back on the development of a broader timeframe variant for EiA which included a lot more leaders. Poniatowski, for example, would also be cool. Just some random thoughts... - Reknoy

mogami -> Hey thanks (11/26/2002 6:31:28 AM)
Vous �tes trop aimable

denisonh -> More Leader Detail (11/26/2002 7:09:13 AM)
I agree fully. With the Napoleonic period bringing many things to the evolution of warfare, the importance of leadership and combat arms based doctrine were at the forefront. (Leadership - the dynamic element of the combat power). So more detail of the leaders that made the difference in the battles and campaigns of the era would be a great plus.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375