May update (More info...)

May update (More info...) (Full Version)

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

Message

Marshall Ellis -> May update (More info...) (5/8/2003 10:21:59 AM)
Hey all: I threw a few things at you and got just what I wanted! Some VERY good opinions with facts behind the opinions. Let me clarify a few points and ask a few more questions... Major power AI would only NOT be in the PBEM version. A hot seat version would have major power AI and the intent is to add it to the PBEM version but we're trying to prioritize things in order of importance. The problem lies with who runs and emails the AI controlled MP's turn??? We're working on this... Cossacks? Well almost all of you said it ... got to have it. The problem with the programming is simply that the engine sees these units as corps and treats them as such. We'll have to do some tweaking to make these guys able to move through the enemy and not be reinforced. Just a matter of time... Interception? Well our idea is that you move a ship and when you're done then tell the ship to stand on patrol which will attempt to auto intercept any enemy fleet that moves in the same area or passes by an adjacent area... Kingdoms? If you could then please tell me the 3 most important kingdoms in the game. Poland, Ottoman and Rhine??? Again, coding is not the issue but time is and what we have to do is essentially create dormant nations on top of exisiting nations that when created, gives several goodies to the controlling MP. Not a trivial task but as many of you have said, Why play Turkey if you cannot create the Ottoman? Great point! Tell me your thoughts on the feudal capabilities of the Turkish units??? Is this important? As of today, the Turkish units are standard corps but we're debating the feudal ability and its relevance to the game (remove and restore at the end of a year). We think this might be quite important...??? I haven't done a very good job of keeping you guys in the loop on what our current minor diplomacy is so here we go... We modeled this after EIH verison 3.0 (Thank you Michael Treasure). This is pretty simple but it builds a little more intensity and stress over minor nations. A minor nation can be "INFLUENCED" or "ALLIED" by a major nation. This is done by achieving certain die rolls and sending a little money toward a minor when if successful, the minor would become "INFLUENCED" by the major. A minor which is "INFLUENCED" by a major which has war declared on it by ANOTHER major would become a Freestate of the first major (The one who INFLUENCED the minor) Follow me? "ALLIED" is similar with the added benefit of being able to be called to war by the major nation who "ALLIED" the minor. Another variable in this equation is that a major nation can manipulate another major nation's "INFLUENCED" or "ALLIED" minor. One major could manipulate another major nation's "INFLUENCED" minor which would, if successful, switch the minor back to NUETRAL. EXAMPLES: Bavaria is "INFLUENCED" by Austria. France declares war on Bavaria at which point Bavaria becomes an Austrian Freestate. Bavaria is "ALLIED" by Austria. Austria declares war on France and CALLS Bavaria at which point Bavaria becomes a Freestate of Austria and is at war with France. Bavaria is "ALLIED" by Austria. During the diplomacy phase, France attempts to manipulate Bavaria and was successful then Bavaria becomes "INFLUENCED" by Austria. Bavaria is "INFLUENCED" by Austria. During the diplomacy phase, France attempts to manipulate Bavaria and was successful then Bavaria becomes "NUETRAL". Anyway, thank you again for all of your comments. I read ALL of them so please keep them coming. I'm not a real experienced EIA player so I have the luxury of not making too many assumptions and therefore, tend to ask what some of you might think are simple questions and I realize that but hang in there with me and soon we'll all be playing what I'm starting to think is the "Mother Of All Wargames" or MOAW.

Chiteng -> (5/8/2003 11:53:19 AM)
Tell me your thoughts on the feudal capabilities of the Turkish units??? Is this important? As of today, the Turkish units are standard corps but we're debating the feudal ability and its relevance to the game (remove and restore at the end of a year). We think this might be quite important...??? **************************************************** Its CRITICAL to the play of Turkey for several reasons. The most obvious is you dont have to build them. They just arrive. That means that the Turk doesnt have the economic drain of Cav for one thing. Another thing is that you can effectively 'teleport' your corps back to their home province. That means that with good play, you can actually do a Banzai offensive totally lose, and STILL be in good shape to resist and enemy counter moves. No offence intended but your question implies that you have not played the game alot. Do you have similar questions about Spanish Partisans? The economics of the game ARE the game. Turkey is NOT able to afford to supply its troops. The whole intent of feudal corps is to allow you to attrit them w/o pain. (or at least not much) The special rules with regards to the Straits and Istanbul are crucial. they are the only way that prevents a British cake walk in Turkey. I have seen several games where Turkey with cash grants from England managed to actually make inroads into Russia. Seriously compromising Russia's position. The hard thing to do is attack Austria. The Balkans provide so little inherent supply that an Offensive is very much a slaughter. Troops die of starvation wholesale. With a good Cav leader, fighting the Turks is dangerous. If they win, and get a pursuit...your dead. I have seen wholesale destruction of armies, by feudal cav.

Chiteng -> (5/8/2003 11:57:58 AM)
BTW I dont think that you MUST dissolve feudal corp every year. It is simply an option. Obviously if your outside Moscow you DONT wish to have your army teleport home overnight.

denisonh -> (5/8/2003 12:01:22 PM)
Thanks for the bones Marshall. Really glad to hear that there will be some allowances for interception. But still would like to "qualify" the interception if the decision will not be on the spot. Specifically, in terms of who to engage (anyone, only forces of equal strength, only weaker forces, etc..). Kind of like giving guidance to the Admiral on the scope his responsibilities and latitude of action. Like the approach to minor diplomacy. and glad to hear about AI for Major nations. Those are my three votes for major kingdoms: Ottoman, Rhine and Poland. And representation of the Turkey feudal units is important, si it is both a benefit and a burden. It gives a unique flavor to the Turks, although it would seem Chiteng is more the expert than myself when it comes to the Turks....

Chiteng -> More about Turkey (5/8/2003 12:06:39 PM)
Turkey is kind of like NASCAR racing. Its High Risk and High reward. Realisticly Turkey simply cannot compete with France for example. Or Britain. So since you know they are weak, its like the ANV, you take a great many risks that normal players dont. Frontal assaults for example, escalated attacks, even Cordon. Because since your morale is so low, you NEED a quick win. The ability of corp to reinforce another corp under attack is important. In fact it can make all the difference. Example: A feudal infantry corp doesnt make it to the rest of the army in one turn. So it is sitting adjacent to the rest of the army. The Austrian army jumps that corp, sensing an easy VP. However The Turk picks Defend and the Austrian (showing legitimate contempt of feudal inf) picks escalated assault. After the first round, the Turkish Corp only has one INF left, However the Turkish player rolls a one on reaction. The entire Turkish army moves to assist. Now you have a 75 strength point army using defend, vs Escalated Assault. Not a pretty picture. I have seen exactly this situation happen. The resulting mild defeat was turned into disaster by the feudal cav. Austria surrendered unconditionally.

Chiteng -> (5/8/2003 12:07:49 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Thanks for the bones Marshall. Really glad to hear that there will be some allowances for interception. But still would like to "qualify" the interception if the decision will not be on the spot. Specifically, in terms of who to engage (anyone, only forces of equal strength, only weaker forces, etc..). Kind of like giving guidance to the Admiral on the scope his responsibilities and latitude of action. Like the approach to minor diplomacy. and glad to hear about AI for Major nations. Those are my three votes for major kingdoms: Ottoman, Rhine and Poland. And representation of the Turkey feudal units is important, si it is both a benefit and a burden. It gives a unique flavor to the Turks, although it would seem Chiteng is more the expert than myself when it comes to the Turks.... [/B][/QUOTE] Because of the way I bid...I have played Turkey and Spain a great deal. Not by choice really. But it is alot easier to win with a bid of '1'

denisonh -> (5/8/2003 12:23:56 PM)
I do not doubt it, as the three times I have played, I have been GB all three times.

Hoplosternum -> (5/8/2003 3:00:51 PM)
I agree that the Feudal Corps are vital for Turkey. Dwarfing the importance of the Ottoman Empire. Without the ability to 'rebuild' and reposition most of it's army for free each year it will be much weaker than it already is. If it is a coding time problem then you could certainly devise a game without it. But Turkish provinces would need to have vastly more manpower so it can build militia infantry. You would also probably need a 'feudal cavalry' factor buildable only by Turkey (maybe with some cost but low). This would change Turkey's play as it could not dissolve and recreate the Corps so easily. It would also make it's adjusted manpower rich provinces more inviting for attack. But it could make Turkey viable again. Being able to drop off militia garissons and build up a big store of such in peacetime may outweigh the loss of the ability to dissolve and recreate.

Dagfinn -> (5/8/2003 5:38:59 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]No offence intended but your question implies that you have not played the game alot.[/B][/QUOTE] No offence intended from me either, but the thought struck me too. And that worries me when thinking about the final product... :confused:

pfnognoff -> Re: May update (More info...) (5/8/2003 6:08:33 PM)
[QUOTE][B]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis Interception? Well our idea is that you move a ship and when you're done then tell the ship to stand on patrol which will attempt to auto intercept any enemy fleet that moves in the same area or passes by an adjacent area...[/B][/QUOTE] This will be so in PBEM, in Hot Seat you will be asked if you would like to intercept? [QUOTE][B]Kingdoms? If you could then please tell me the 3 most important kingdoms in the game. Poland, Ottoman and Rhine??? [/B][/QUOTE] Well these three are the most important, when you think about land combat and corps counters. When it comes to naval combat there are others (like it was said before) that become more important with their fleet counters. But, what are you planning to do with the ability of each major power to declare its Domminant status? I ask because some of the prerequisites for this include creating some smaller Kingdoms (like Kingdom of Italy)? [QUOTE][B]Tell me your thoughts on the feudal capabilities of the Turkish units??? Is this important? As of today, the Turkish units are standard corps but we're debating the feudal ability and its relevance to the game (remove and restore at the end of a year). We think this might be quite important...??? [/B][/QUOTE] Well, in my opinion Turkey is the weakest but the most fun to play. Weak part comes from low money/manpower values and low morale. The fun part comes from having feudal corps to threaten with. One example: your chit choosing is simpler because there is no preassure of the devastating defeat (all the losses will come back ready to strike back). Also, they have something similar to Rapid Deployment. You could be involved in Africa with a number of Corps, when Austrian player decides to take advantage of this and stab you in the back, you simply stand those corps down, and during next reinforcement phase they are in their respective home provinces. What will you do with Austrian Insurection Corps, will they have all the original features, or will you make them regular as well? Those are also an important feature... [QUOTE][B]soon we'll all be playing what I'm starting to think is the "Mother Of All Wargames" or MOAW. [/B][/QUOTE] YEAH

Marshall Ellis -> Thanks again (5/8/2003 7:28:29 PM)
Hey guys: Thanks again for the input and you are correct that I have not played the game very much. I mentioned this in my post but I'm using this as a benefit since I can approach it like a child learning some unique skill. If you get what I'm saying then you'll realize that kids learn easier because they don't realize how hard, the skill they are trying to learn, really is. No I'm not very experienced at the game but that's where you guys come in... Don't let that worry you ... I'll do the worrying and you guys just keep the ideas coming...!

Wynter -> Re: May update (More info...) (5/8/2003 7:36:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis [B]Tell me your thoughts on the feudal capabilities of the Turkish units??? Is this important? As of today, the Turkish units are standard corps but we're debating the feudal ability and its relevance to the game (remove and restore at the end of a year). We think this might be quite important...??? [/B][/QUOTE] Having played Turkey two times now, I can only add that feudal forces are the major strength of Turkey. Three free cavalry corps, yearly regeneration and instant redeployment are what keeps Turkey alive. I'm a programmer myself, so I understand that implementing special corps units can be tricky. Maybe you can give the feudal corps some kind of tag and during december economy (levy step) you can present a list to the turkish player containing such tagged corps units so that he can select from the list which corps he wants to bring up to strength. When such a corps is selected, the program has to present another list presenting the territories of the corps' home province, since feudals can only be brought in play in their home province. Bear in mind that the levy step is AFTER the money and manpower expenditure step, so the Turkish player does not have to pay maintenance for the feudals he wishes to bring back to full strength. During reinforcement, this list of available feudal corps also has to be presentend as each reinforcement phase as the Turkish player can bring any feudals on board that are currently offboard. Again when such a corps is selected, the list with available territories in the relevant homeprovince should be show. Bear in mind, though, that if the province contains enemy forces, the feudal corps of that province can't be raised! Another constraint of feudals is that they can't detach or absorb factors, again this can be coded by refering to the feudal tag. And finaly, feudals are not militia, so the constraint of militialosses in a field combat (when morale loss exceeds 2.0, no militia may be chosen as casaulties) is not valid for feudals. The three kingdoms you suggest are indeed very important, but I would also suggest you additionaly try to insert 'The Kingdom of Italy', since this a important for gaining dominance and for the Venice fleet, offcourse. Good luck ;) , Jeroen.

mmurray821 -> Re: May update (More info...) (5/8/2003 8:37:36 PM)
[B]Hey all: Cossacks? Well almost all of you said it ... got to have it. The problem with the programming is simply that the engine sees these units as corps and treats them as such. We'll have to do some tweaking to make these guys able to move through the enemy and not be reinforced. Just a matter of time... Good to hear! :D Interception? Well our idea is that you move a ship and when you're done then tell the ship to stand on patrol which will attempt to auto intercept any enemy fleet that moves in the same area or passes by an adjacent area... Good to hear, but that kinda limits the British fleets to stick around Enland and the north sea. Until the British build up a uber navy. Playtesting should see how well this idea works. Kingdoms? If you could then please tell me the 3 most important kingdoms in the game. Poland, Ottoman and Rhine??? Again, coding is not the issue but time is and what we have to do is essentially create dormant nations on top of exisiting nations that when created, gives several goodies to the controlling MP. Not a trivial task but as many of you have said, Why play Turkey if you cannot create the Ottoman? Great point! Those three are my votes Tell me your thoughts on the feudal capabilities of the Turkish units??? Is this important? As of today, the Turkish units are standard corps but we're debating the feudal ability and its relevance to the game (remove and restore at the end of a year). We think this might be quite important...??? They are critical to making Turkey a playable and winnable nation. From my game experiences, Turkey usually doesn't do that well outside of its borders or out of North Africa. However, with the feudal troops, invaders can be damaged with their Pyrrhic victories and Turkey STILL has a bunch of troops to throw at them. All in all, sounds like the game is coming along nicely!

Khi -> Re: May update (More info...) (5/8/2003 10:55:22 PM)
PBEM AI: Such a relief to hear that you're working on this. My big concern is that the PBEM system be able to handle players leaving, then coming back, with an AI there to fill in the gaps. Players will be drawn away by real life or lack of interest. Sometimes, others can be found to replace them, sometimes they come back themselves (i.e. extended vacations). None of the PBEM games I've run have been able to handle these kinds of situations, with the result that the game is put on hold until another human can be found. Sometimes (like in the final years of a game) that simply doesn't happen, and the game dies. With something as large scale as EiA, it's more important for me that this be kept in mind when designing the PBEM system. Cossacks- I figured it'd be something like unit/corps confusion, which is why I thought an artificial fix could be made. Something like an "insurrection" or "feudal" corps that's limited to simply one cavalry. Supply issues would likewise have to be tweaked. Of course, it sounds like you are having trouble with feudal corps, so there might not be an easy fix (yet). But it is important for the Russkies. Interception- Not too sure about Auto intercept. It could lead to gamey-play. For example, the British fleet patrol Bay of Biscay. The French, eager to land in Spain, send a fleet out as bait to the north of Biscay, drawing the auto-intercept and moving the British northwards. Following this, a second fleet (with the invading army) merrily passes through to land in Galicia. Kingdoms- Do you have Denmark, Sweden and Two Sicilies already set up as 'Kingdoms' at game start?? I'd place those three as much more important since they start most scenarios neutral and with fleets. Poland: for historical flavor and Ottomans: for game-play are the two most important. Rhine a distant third, with Italy not far behind. Feudal corps- Far more critical for Turkey than anything else. The free reinforcements are hard to replicate. "Napoleon in Europe" doesn't have anything like the feudal corps, and Turkey in that game is served up for Thanksgiving. Minors- Very glad to see the EiH style. Questions- will any power be able to affect another's minors allegiances, or will they have to be non-allied (as in EiH)? Secret diplomatic overtures would be fun here. Also, will there be the possibility of inciting revolts?

Reknoy -> (5/9/2003 12:31:14 AM)
Regarding Kingdoms: This is referring to the New Political Combinations. Sicilies, Sweden and Denmark should already be there. My vote for Kingdoms: Ottoman, Poland and Kingdom of Italy (it gets a fleet counter that is unique to the game, so it ranks above Rhine -- plus it's a realistic option for Austria which adds a little value to that poor country). As for gaming experience, we know this because of the fantastic way with which you enlist all of us to help. In light of that, I don't think it matters -- it's perhaps even better in that you can take a fresh approach to rules issues that are likely ingrained in each of us (and in many cases, incorrectly). Feudal corps must have the capacity to "stand down" and reduce costs on Turkey. Likewise they must come freely and be "recharged" every year (subject to the necc. conditions). Whether or not a feudal corps can "teleport" is another matter. Here is where (depending on which is more difficult to manage) you could tweak the rules a little. Why can feudal corps "stand up" and "stand down" so readily? What's the history behind it? I think if you consider that, you can readily make it so that the corps can stand down wherever they are freely (basically disband the corps), but that you must wait until the start of the new year to "recharge" that feudal corps and bring it back. Just throwing that out. The concept of the feudal corps really has to stay (cheap, low morale troops that arrive for free, etc.), but the mechanics could be reworked in a way that limits some of the logical extensions of their ability to stand down, etc. Reknoy

Chiteng -> (5/9/2003 12:55:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy [B]Regarding Kingdoms: This is referring to the New Political Combinations. Sicilies, Sweden and Denmark should already be there. My vote for Kingdoms: Ottoman, Poland and Kingdom of Italy (it gets a fleet counter that is unique to the game, so it ranks above Rhine -- plus it's a realistic option for Austria which adds a little value to that poor country). As for gaming experience, we know this because of the fantastic way with which you enlist all of us to help. In light of that, I don't think it matters -- it's perhaps even better in that you can take a fresh approach to rules issues that are likely ingrained in each of us (and in many cases, incorrectly). Feudal corps must have the capacity to "stand down" and reduce costs on Turkey. Likewise they must come freely and be "recharged" every year (subject to the necc. conditions). Whether or not a feudal corps can "teleport" is another matter. Here is where (depending on which is more difficult to manage) you could tweak the rules a little. Why can feudal corps "stand up" and "stand down" so readily? What's the history behind it? I think if you consider that, you can readily make it so that the corps can stand down wherever they are freely (basically disband the corps), but that you must wait until the start of the new year to "recharge" that feudal corps and bring it back. Just throwing that out. The concept of the feudal corps really has to stay (cheap, low morale troops that arrive for free, etc.), but the mechanics could be reworked in a way that limits some of the logical extensions of their ability to stand down, etc. Reknoy [/B][/QUOTE] I dont agree.. First its a rules rewrite in the middle of the design. Second a Corp CAN disband on any turn. You simply detach the INF/CAV factors and remove it. The ability of a feudal corp to teleport back to its home province allows the Turk an easier time defending against oppotunistic attacks. Specificly by Med powers with fleets. CF Britain and Spain. Feudal Corp can only be fielded I believe, in the spring. So it isnt quite as convienient as Reknoy fears. It takes real planning to use this feature well. But if timed right, you can get the effect stated. Someone with the rules handy can easily check which month the feudal korp can be raised.

Wynter -> (5/9/2003 1:05:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Someone with the rules handy can easily check which month the feudal korp can be raised. [/B][/QUOTE] December levy step. :D Jeroen.

Reknoy -> (5/9/2003 1:14:05 AM)
December levy is the step where you get them all back -- agreed. You can stand them down at any time. You can only raise them back up (at the strength they were when they stood down), if there are no enemy corps in their respective province. I am not opposed to the feudal corps as is. Forget the rest. :)

Chiteng -> (5/9/2003 7:34:02 AM)
You have not mentioned alternative scenarios? like 1792. If you DO the 1792 I hope you code in the decision to kill the King and Queen.

pfnognoff -> (5/9/2003 3:32:14 PM)
What should be our goal here is to complete the game with all of the core rules from the original board game. Those were done with great care and thought regarding the play balance and fun. This includes feudal corps, insurection corps, cosaks, freikorps, all the kingdoms, etc. All the scenarios and variants, should come as an option, maybe even at the later stage of the development. Even EiH which was done with the participation of many, and is probably better then the original, should be there as an option.

Le Tondu -> Re: May update (More info...) (5/9/2003 9:17:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marshall Ellis [B]Kingdoms? If you could then please tell me the 3 most important kingdoms in the game. Poland, Ottoman and Rhine??? Again, coding is not the issue but time is and what we have to do is essentially create dormant nations on top of exisiting nations that when created, gives several goodies to the controlling MP. Not a trivial task but as many of you have said, Why play Turkey if you cannot create the Ottoman? Great point![/B][/QUOTE] Thanks Marshall. Keep the bones a coming! :) Regarding the above quote: Wasn't Poland a duchy that was supposed to be administered by the kingdom of Saxony? Napoleon resisted all efforts to make it a kingdom. (What if Napoleon had made it a full blown kingdom?) The "Rhine" was a Confederation of duchies and kingdoms. At different times the were other confederations as well. I know for the game they're called "kingdoms." I just bring this up for the sake of clarity. The trend to blurrrrrr history is a malaise that we can all do without. Computer games and movies like to do that for some reason. Yes, what about the kingdom of Italy? Napoleon was it's king before his son was born. What about the kingdom of Naples? The Neopolitans sure had a healthy place in the Napoleonic Era. Then there is the French kingdom of Spain. I say these things because it seems to me that the map/ game really should have a greater freedom in this respect. Limiting them to only three seems like a great mistake in my opinion. I really do not care anymore how long it takes to do this game. We all want the game to be done right. Saying that there can only be three "kingdoms" made is like saying that this will only be a three player game : France, England, and Russia. Only it isn't a three player game. The designer "went the distance" and included all the major players so we can have what we know to be as EiA or EiH. All I'm suggesting is for Matrix Games to "go the distance" as well and bring us a minor, but IMO just as important a part of this history. Heck take another three months. Its ok with me. Just get it done right.

Le Tondu -> Yes, yes! (5/9/2003 9:23:27 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]You have not mentioned alternative scenarios? like 1792. If you DO the 1792 I hope you code in the decision to kill the King and Queen. [/B][/QUOTE] 1792 for certain! Why not code in choices to kill all the kings and queens. ;) Yet, the taking over of a country by -say France defeating -say Prussia could incorporate the killing of the monarchy. All the French player has to do is say it. Right? The consequences are simply the other "kings" getting more pi~~ed off. For the game, the Prussian king and queen would dead.

Chiteng -> Re: Yes, yes! (5/9/2003 9:42:21 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu [B]1792 for certain! Why not code in choices to kill all the kings and queens. ;) Yet, the taking over of a country by -say France defeating -say Prussia could incorporate the killing of the monarchy. All the French player has to do is say it. Right? The consequences are simply the other "kings" getting more pi~~ed off. For the game, the Prussian king and queen would dead. [/B][/QUOTE] I doubt Nappy would ever have executed Marie Louisa. She was far too cute.

Wynter -> Re: Re: May update (More info...) (5/9/2003 9:42:57 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Le Tondu [B]Heck take another three months. Its ok with me. Just get it done right. [/B][/QUOTE] LOL!!! I don't think the Marshall's boss will approve to an extra three months of development. I guess we'll have to see what the endproduct will be. If enough of us start buying, the Marshall will get extra time to produce some major patches to include those extra features that were now unfortunately omitted. Jeroen.

Field Kitchen -> (5/9/2003 9:44:28 PM)
Hi Marshall Late in the piece, but congratulations to you and Matrix for taking on EiA. It is refreshing to see a design and programming team with such an open philosophy. Great too to follow such lively debate in the forum. Aeons have passed since I played the ADG version and most of the detail of the game now escapes my memory. I do however remember EiA as the best boardgame I ever played. I would take this opportunity to add to the chorus of pleas that you include AI PBEM capability in Version 1.0, or a patch ASAP post-release. I see this as a core playability issue for the reasons outlined by earlier posters. I am not on St Helena but PBEM will be my main (only) playing medium. Rest assured I will be voting support for all your effort with my Euros come release date. Keep up the good work, all the best

Yorlum -> Authenticity (5/9/2003 10:35:48 PM)
For what it is worth, I wish to urge Matrix that they avoid abandoning the look and feel of the original game to court more �authenticity�. Yes, Poland was the �Grand Duchy of Warsaw�, and it was supposedly administered by a third party. That has nothing to do with the game, as it plays, though. Yes, teleporting Feudal Corps are not authentic, but the game was designed with them as a crutch for the poor Turkish player. How many here have essentially said �Ugg, Turkey! Why would anyone want to play THEM?�. Well, it is a rough enough spot as it is, why make it even HARDER to play the Turks? Because it is more �authentic�? If that is the goal, make it a six player game and make sure that the AI is up to snuff, because only a masochist would be willing to be the Turks. As to the discussion of �Kingdoms�, let us be accurate and use the EiA term �New Political Combinations�. All have their place in the game, though in practice, I find that Poland s actually used the most, followed by Italy, with the Goal of decalring the Ottomans as a big factor in diplomacy in the Med.

Chiteng -> Re: Re: Yes, yes! (5/9/2003 10:43:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]I doubt Nappy would ever have executed Marie Louisa. She was far too cute. [/B][/QUOTE] Forgive me, I meant Louise Augusta of Prussia. Rumour has it she offered herself to Nappy if he would allow Prussia to keep Magdeburg. He turned her down. Its just a rumour.

sol_invictus -> (5/9/2003 10:50:14 PM)
Yeah, for being the only "real man" in Prussia, she was quite a looker.

Khi -> (5/9/2003 10:57:34 PM)
[QUOTE]As to the discussion of �Kingdoms�, let us be accurate and use the EiA term �New Political Combinations�. [/QUOTE] Accuracy is just a matter of perspective. EiA used "New Political Combinations", but Empires in Harm uses 'Kingdoms' as a generic term for ANY multi-province minor nation. Michael Treasure's work already has influenced several elements (like the different naval levels), so calling them "Kingdoms" is merely referencing the EiH rules. Of course, there is a further confusion, since in EiH, Treasure uses the more accurate Ottoman Empire for the major power EiA calls Turkey. EiH splits up the "Ottoman Empire" combination into three: "Barbary Coast", "Libya" and "Mamlukes". All in all, I like this more than the "Ottoman Empire" of EiA- and would like to push for it instead. If Matrix is only looking for three new Kingdoms (again, Denmark, Sweden and Two Sicilies are a MUST for game-start), then I'd press for Poland, Mamlukes and Rhine. So long as we all know what we're talking about... and more importantly- the Matrix designers know!

Yorlum -> (5/9/2003 11:00:49 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Khi [B] So long as we all know what we're talking about... and more importantly- the Matrix designers know! [/B][/QUOTE] Agreed, although I will also reiterate my wish that there will be a means to incrementally introduce EiH elements to the EiA game, rather than start with EiH.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125