March Update

March Update (Full Version)

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

Message

Marshall Ellis -> March Update (2/27/2003 11:41:21 AM)
Hey all: I know your probably thinking ... March update? But it's early? ... Well I thought I would get jump on things and I'm also excited to let you guys know that we are doing some preliminary testing on the entire engine. The combat is done and now we're throwing the AI into the combat so the computer will be able to fight back. BTW: Thank you "Le Tondu" for the reminder and also the wierd shadow on the coast is gone in our new map :-) We have a new map and we're currently getting the art work done so things are progressing. I want to thank you all for your patience and hope that it is worth it since I've put about two years of my life into it. We're not done yet but I think I'll buy at least 20,000 copies for myself to make sure it is worth the wait! Thank you all for your posts about PBEM play because that will be the next big trick but I've already got some coding done for it and I've seen some PBEM methods and played a few so I hope to make it much easier just simply by letting the engine do the rules interpretation. Again all, thank you for your patience. I'm sorry I cannot get back to all of your posts but please keep'em coming because I do read them all! Thank you

eg0master -> (2/27/2003 4:55:11 PM)
Ok, that made my day! I think it is great you are starting to test the complete game engine. I cannot help myself, I must ask the forbidden questions everyone wants to ask: - When do you think you will go into Beta test? - Will you use "matrix standard beta testers" (mentioned in another thread) or is there a possibility to be part of the Beta? - Is the realease date slipping or are we still talking "summer 2003"?

Marshall Ellis -> Good question(s)! (2/27/2003 8:54:44 PM)
Beta test ??? ... Not sure of date yet. Beta tester ??? ... I'm not real involved in that selection process Ross Moorhouse will post something in the fourm when we are ready. Date slipping??? ... Possible but not certain and certainly not preferred! I would say that if it slipped, it would probably slip from early summer to late summer but still release in the summer. Hope this helps! Thank you

Le Tondu -> Wooo Hooo! (2/27/2003 9:40:51 PM)
Good news indeed. Thanks Marshall. :)

eg0master -> (2/27/2003 10:13:02 PM)
Better answers than I expected! Now stopreading this forum and get back to work Marshall Ellis! :D

EricLarsen -> Combat?? (2/28/2003 4:09:40 AM)
Marshall, The March Update header certainly draws attention since it's still February. Glad to hear the game engine is starting some preliminary testing. Still very interested to know how closely it will resemble the boardgame's combat. I really enjoyed the tension of multi-round combats and the decisions I had to make; not to mention waiting to see if that flanking element shows up in a later round as hoped. For an easy, abstract combat system it still was good at capturing the flavor of Napoleonic combat. It sure will be nice to have the computer tallying up all the strength and morale data in an instant.:D As far as release date goes, don't rush it. If I've got to wait a while longer for you to get the game right then I'm happy to wait. I really have no tolerance for sloppy work like Hearts of Iron that was released far too prematurely! Quality takes time and I'm happy to wait for the quality. Eric Larsen

Marshall Ellis -> EIA Combat (2/28/2003 5:41:14 AM)
To your points Eric: I'm happy to say that combat will be identical to the boardgame! We originally designed a much different combat system that I first called enhanced but after doing the EIA combat which entails standard chits , pursuit and multi-round combat, I'm happy to say that I like the original EIA combat much better. It's a proven system and I sweat a little more with the suspense. You also get the benefit of letting the PC take care of all of that pesky paperwork (morale, outflank force composition, casualty calculation, etc.). Thanks for the support Eric. I too, believe in a stable program and not one that was rushed to market. Nothing bothers me more than being in the middle of a game that I may not have saved in 30 minutes and BAM! ... Locked up! Thank you

sol_invictus -> (2/28/2003 11:42:35 PM)
Oh boy, sounds like we are getting relatively close now. Can't wait.

IChristie -> A look at the new map (3/3/2003 12:45:22 AM)
Here's a few shots of the new map that Marshall mentioned. Please note that it's still a early draft and we have not chased down all the errata yet so please hold off on pointing out any inconsistencies or specific cartographic errors just yet. Basically the last version seemed to be about halfway between a "realistic" terrain type map and a "canvas parchment" look. The compromise wasn't working. After trying out a few ideas we settled on the current "painted - parchment" look. Let us know what you think of the overall look. First of all here's a look at the whole map in reduced scale. [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/CloseCombatIan/EIA004.jpg[/IMG] Here's another version with the empire boundaries overlaid [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/CloseCombatIan/EIA005.jpg[/IMG] Here's a few looks at the map in full scale (It measures 4600x3500 - a bit of a monster really ;) ) [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/CloseCombatIan/EIA001.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/CloseCombatIan/EIA002.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.militarygameronline.com/CloseCombatIan/EIA003.jpg[/IMG] Enjoy!

ASHBERY76 -> (3/3/2003 8:24:07 AM)
Thats looks cool, now we want to see the armies on the map.;)

pasternakski -> (3/3/2003 10:22:41 AM)
I really like the painted parchment effect. I only have two complaints (but don't mind me, I'm an unconscionable b1tcher, just ask anybody) -Those sea zone divisions need to be a lot more distinct -The political boundaries still wash out into the background color and make them difficult to see (note, for example, how the Spanish boundaries blend almost completely into the light green background and how the Austrian boundaries get lost in the white mountain terrain) I suggest that the political boundaries be made a distinctly clear line rather than the "fadeaway" shading that they currently are. A bolder, non-Italic typeface for the placenames would help too, I think. It's all a matter of making it legible for the player, IMHO. When I think of how much more detail will be added when the various icons are added, it's going to be hard to separate it all visually. Bright colors on the icons in contrast to the subdued earthtones on the underlying map should be helpful. Oh - I would make those cities and port symbols a little crisper, too. Okay, I'll shut up.

eg0master -> (3/3/2003 3:27:06 PM)
Map looks good. Just have to get a cloth and wipe all these druel fluids from my keyboard... :D

Le Tondu -> Wow (3/3/2003 9:56:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ASHBERY76 [B]Thats looks cool, now we want to see the armies on the map.;) [/B][/QUOTE] Clearly, the word is cool. I like how the mountains have turned out. I also like how the land is made to look like an old map. The texture on the oceans looks great too. Wow, thanks for the look. It certainly is coming along very nicely.

IChristie -> (3/4/2003 4:56:31 AM)
Thanks for you comments. Much appreciated [QUOTE] I really like the painted parchment effect. I only have two complaints (but don't mind me, I'm an unconscionable b1tcher, just ask anybody) [/QUOTE] What! Perish the thought! How can that be? I am disappointed. Everyone here usually just says nice things about these wonderful games. ;) :D Seriously - thanks for the constructive comments. Legibility has been one of my major concerns. As you say the map is very busy - making the information obvious while trying to maintain the overall look is going to be a challenge. I'm sure there will be adjustments as we start looking at the map in the game with the game pieces etc.

sandy -> (3/4/2003 5:13:39 AM)
I much prefer the map like this, more like the game. It looks great! Not that its any of my business (especially as I know how hard and how long it can take just to do the little things!) I would suggest the following 1) If you were worried about clarity or the map looking too busy then allow some of the map to be viewed as the user wants ie the ability to turn on or off certain features, so for example if I just wanted to see state borders (ie no terrain features or cities) then I could just check the approp box or something 2) Other games have tried different ways to deal with large maps with lots of info. Total War allows you to press the shift key which highlights your provinces, which can be a good idea if you want to see the big picture etc. Other games let you switch from different types of maps such as political, terrain and so on. You should know that I know a lot of wargamers that are looking forwrd to this game a LOT, if you get it right it will be successful. All this about taking time is obviously a good idea if you can afford the time lost without sales... so good luck guys, a lot of people are excited about your work.

pasternakski -> (3/4/2003 7:29:43 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by IChristie [B]Thanks for you comments. Much appreciated What! Perish the thought! How can that be? I am disappointed. Everyone here usually just says nice things about these wonderful games. ;) :D Seriously - thanks for the constructive comments. Legibility has been one of my major concerns. As you say the map is very busy - making the information obvious while trying to maintain the overall look is going to be a challenge. I'm sure there will be adjustments as we start looking at the map in the game with the game pieces etc. [/B][/QUOTE] I do love the parchment effect. This may wind up being one of the most attractive maps of its type ever built into a computer wargame. I guess I prefer more sharpness and contrast as a utilitarian matter. I agree with Sandy that the original's "flavor" should not be lost, but utility is the primary concern for me. Great stuff, Iain.

Yorlum -> Map (3/4/2003 9:23:07 PM)
Looked great! My questions/concerns... Will there be a reference view that shows money/manpower values, forage values, spires, port defenses, and fortess fleches?

martinmb -> (3/7/2003 6:46:36 AM)
This map work looks great. I am one of those people that liked the old map but after seeing this one I just can't wait to see what other improvements you have done to the game. Minor points Prussia's national borders is still incorrect if I am understanding the map correctly. Sandy I totally agree with your statements and well said. I think that the optional information button selection would make everyone happy. Thsi way you could set the game up as you like it and for what you have always not wanted on the map. Yes, as some of you can tell I am back online again. ( to bad for those of you who though that you got rid of me because I'mmmm baaack). Marshall have you decided as to what might be the best way to solve the email situation? If so please let us know what you have decided in next month's update. Thanks Martinmb :cool:

ASHBERY76 -> (3/7/2003 9:32:21 PM)
I see thats it mainly a europe map, so how is fleet strength worked out? will all of the british empire's ships be on the english channel.

Le Tondu -> (3/7/2003 10:15:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ASHBERY76 [B]I see thats it mainly a europe map, so how is fleet strength worked out? will all of the british empire's ships be on the english channel. [/B][/QUOTE] Didn't the Napoleonic Wars mainly take place in Europe? Don't forget that the game map has a healthy dose of Northern Africa, the Middle East, the Mediterranean Sea, .... As for the English Navy, where they are on the map is up to the player, I'd say.

Butcher White -> (3/8/2003 8:02:02 PM)
I think you may have misunderstood the question. From memory, the original design provides for the European fleets of Britain to be represented, not the global fleet. You can build more ships to reinforce it, but cannot recall garrison fleets from the Indies and West Indies. Similarly, I believe British manpower levels are net of empire maintenance. In fact, though, this represents virtually the entire empire's fleet as British practice did not include large long term postings of capital ships IIRC. Cheers

Le Tondu -> (3/8/2003 11:21:20 PM)
Ahhh. Point taken. It sure would be nice to see something of the Indes and West Indes represented somehow on the map since they were at least a part of what went on. Recently in a biography of Marshal Ney, I read how (in 1803) the then new Swiss troops began to mutiny when they heard rumors that they might be sent to San Domingo. Then there is Villanuevue's move to the West Indes before Trafalgar. Truly, those places were on peoples minds from time to time. I wonder if it is it too late? Can such an inovation be incorporated at this stage?

Butcher White -> (3/9/2003 1:59:38 AM)
At this late stage probably not without serious risk of damaging the game :( Cheers

Hoche -> Put it in the expansion?!? (3/17/2003 2:38:24 AM)
I think it would be a good idea to include a colonies expansion pack to the game. About six to twelve months after the basic version has come out (and been wildly successful) Matrix could put out a "Colonies in Arms" expansion. It could include North America (USA), the Caribbean, South America, Africa and Asia. I think this would make the game much more interesting. It would increase tensions between Great Britain and Spain. Also we could see how the USA would have influenced European diplomacy if it wanted to. Do the Yanks take Canada or do they lose New Orleans? Could Cuba be added to the USA? Also it was during these wars that Great Britain took South Africa. If people don't like the idea of expanding the game then they don't have to but the expansion.

jnier -> Re: Put it in the expansion?!? (3/17/2003 9:11:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoche [B]I think it would be a good idea to include a colonies expansion pack to the game. About six to twelve months after the basic version has come out (and been wildly successful) Matrix could put out a "Colonies in Arms" expansion. It could include North America (USA), the Caribbean, South America, Africa and Asia. [/B][/QUOTE] There is already a set of rules and a map for an expansion into North America, called America in Arms - check out the links below. It looks like the kind of thing that you're talking about. [URL=http://moldran.crosswinds.net/Games/Boardgames/EIA/Library/Resources/Maps/USA-1f.gif]http://moldran.crosswinds.net/Games/Boardgames/EIA/Library/Resources/Maps/USA-1f.gif[/URL] [URL=http://moldran.crosswinds.net/Games/Boardgames/EIA/Library/Resources/USA_1_3.html]http://moldran.crosswinds.net/Games/Boardgames/EIA/Library/Resources/USA_1_3.html[/URL]

Le Tondu -> WOW (3/17/2003 9:59:58 PM)
My original idea was to have something like a section of the map over to the left were naval vessels would be placed to show them "in-transit" and then another section for the destination.... Yet, when I consider the two above posts, it seems more like a stroke of genius to have the map include the Americas. If one thinks about it, all nations and places involved in the Napoleonic Wars should be included AND all nations involved with THEM should be included. The natural progression would be to include the USA and the War of 1812. To have the USA involved in EiA, would not only change the dynamics of the game, it would make incredibly good sense. I agree that most likely, the game presently is in a stage that might not allow the inclusion of the Americas, but the idea of having them included into an expansion pack (later on) is just beautiful. More money for a minimal amount of work is VERY attractive from a business perspective. I'd pay as much as $30 for it. The only problem might be those guys with the suits who have made long range plans for the company that doesn't include this wonderful idea. I bet that they're already pushing for the next game. I hope Marshall would comment about this. If not here maybe in April's update (hint-hint) after he has had some time to think about it?? :)

mmurray821 -> (3/17/2003 10:49:45 PM)
Wow, I love those rules for the US. It shows the state of the US in 1812 very nicely. It would be very interesting to have the US thrown into the mix of politics for EiA. If your contract with the EiA license holders allow for some wiggle room, how about adding it Matrix? wink, wink ;)

Roads -> (3/19/2003 5:51:53 AM)
There are War of 1812 rules in the original board game no? Doesn't Britain lose a corps and two fleets or some such thing?

carnifex -> (3/20/2003 2:26:55 AM)
lots of good info here: http://penguin.trew.se/EiA/rules/ 8.2.1.2.2.2 American Trade: American trade represents European trade with the American continents. 8.2.1.2.2.2.1 American Trade Value: Each major power other than Great Britain may trade with America, receiving twice the second domestic trading value of any one port eligible (must use the one with the highest possible domestic trading values) for domestic trade which it controls. This port may not be in a controlled minor free state but may be in a controlled conquered minor country. It does not matter if this port is also used for domestic trade with Great Britain. Minor free states have no separate American trade. 8.2.1.2.2.2.2 Stopping American Trade-War With The United States: If Great Britain is at war with another major power(s), it may elect during this step to automatically stop that major power(s) from trading with America. 8.2.1.2.2.2.2.1: If Great Britain stops the American trade, Great Britain gains the value of the American trade it stops. 8.2.1.2.2.2.2.2: If this is done, the British player also rolls one die. If the roll is equal to or less than the number of major powers denied trade with America by Great Britain, Great Britain's actions are considered to have started a war with the U. S. A. Great Britain immediately loses 15 money points and loses 15 money points of its colonial trade every following Economic Phase while it remains at war with the USA. While Great Britain is at war with the USA no major power may trade with America. The war with the USA lasts until Great Britain ends it by choosing to lose 5 political points during any Peace Step. There may be more than one war with the USA during the course of a campaign game. [ 12.9 ] * AMERICAN TRADE OPTION: The War of 1812 between Great Britain and the United States was to some extent "engineered" by Napoleon and his "continental system. " In this option, if peace condition B.6 is applied to stop as major power's American trade, this counts as a major power denied trade with America for the die roll required in 8.2.1.2.2.2.2 and the British must make the die roll during any Money and Manpower Collection Step in which any major powers are denied American trade by Britain and/or by the B.6 peace condition.

oleb -> (3/20/2003 11:37:19 PM)
Some representation of the New World would be welcome, but adding as much as the above map is overkill. I like the EiH new world map better. It can be found [URL=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eih-files/files/NewWorld_1805.gif]here[/URL]. Another area that could be added is the middle east, Persia was actually at war with Russia from 1806 to 1813. There has been made a map for this area as well, it can be found [URL=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eih-files/files/complete_map_v1.01.gif]here[/URL]. Both maps are from the EiH yahoo group, which might have restricted access to its files, but membership is open to anyone.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5