(Full Version)

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

Message

Khi -> (5/9/2003 11:54:41 PM)
[QUOTE]my wish that there will be a means to incrementally introduce EiH elements to the EiA game, rather than start with EiH.[/QUOTE] I agree that caution should be used not to make the game overly complex. It's not as if EiA was an easy game to sit down and learn! But I welcome a lot of the ideas that EiH has brought into the rules- for historical accuracy and greater strategic flexibility. Being a computer game, we'll be spared a lot of work cross-referencing tables, rolling dice, multiplying by percents, so I encourage the Matrix designers to fill that freed-up mental energy with more options if they don't dramatically (or needlessly) complicate the game. "New Political Combinations" is one area I think it's easy to add in the options that EiH brings, without needlessly complicating game-play. (Though it would admittedly complicate game development!) The rules for most of the new 'Kingdoms' are simple, the major exceptions are for the most interesting new kingdoms (Poland, Ottoman/Mamlukes, Rhine/HRE). We certainly don't need a "Kingdom of the Caucasus" (from EiH) in the initial release- it won't affect most games very much. But this was a time period that was all about rewriting the map of Europe, and the more options (a la EiH) to do so, the better in my mind. One more vain request, which it may be too late to implement-- an option for ANY existing or created kingdom to be played as a major power, by either AI or a player. Probably shooting for too much there, but our group has played EiA with Sweden as an 8th, and with Poland as an 8th (1788 scenario). Mostly a pipe-dream, but there can always be 2nd editions! :)

Reknoy -> (5/10/2003 5:39:13 AM)
The teleporting feudal corps was simply one piece that I always found odd. I agree with you, Yorlum.

Reknoy -> (5/10/2003 5:43:55 AM)
Regarding "New Political Combinations" or "Kingdoms", I think the main point is that the actual rulebook uses the New Political Combinations reference.

oleb -> (5/10/2003 6:16:25 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reknoy [B]Regarding "New Political Combinations" or "Kingdoms", I think the main point is that the actual rulebook uses the New Political Combinations reference. [/B][/QUOTE] What was divided into multi-district minors and new political combinations in EiA, is imply called "Kingdoms" in EiH. I much prefer the the EiH rules. While on the subject of political changes, I do hope that it wil be possible to achieve and lose dominant status, that is usually an interesting long term goal.

Chiteng -> (5/10/2003 6:21:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ktarn [B]What was divided into multi-district minors and new political combinations in EiA, is imply called "Kingdoms" in EiH. I much prefer the the EiH rules. While on the subject of political changes, I do hope that it wil be possible to achieve and lose dominant status, that is usually an interesting long term goal. [/B][/QUOTE] I think trying to obtain dominance is a boondoggle. It is a delibrete attempt by the designer to tempt you into attacking countries that are actually your natural allies. In the 1805 scenario all must be subordinated to the need to defeat Napoleon. In the 1792 scenario =) Russia is the boogieman. (Suvarov)

pfnognoff -> (5/10/2003 4:05:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]I think trying to obtain dominance is a boondoggle. It is a delibrete attempt by the designer to tempt you into attacking countries that are actually your natural allies. In the 1805 scenario all must be subordinated to the need to defeat Napoleon. In the 1792 scenario =) Russia is the boogieman. (Suvarov) [/B][/QUOTE] No way. There are no "natural allies" in this world. Everybody's goal is to achieve victory. The game goes on for 10 years. If everybody gangs up on France early, G.Britain wins... To stop the Brit from winning there are usaully some quite unnatural alliances formed. Domminant status (don't forget it goes both ways you can win it and you can loose it) is here as a goal for non dominant Major powers and as a warning for Dominant MP not to get too confident.

Chiteng -> (5/10/2003 7:05:36 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pfnognoff [B]No way. There are no "natural allies" in this world. Everybody's goal is to achieve victory. The game goes on for 10 years. If everybody gangs up on France early, G.Britain wins... To stop the Brit from winning there are usaully some quite unnatural alliances formed. Domminant status (don't forget it goes both ways you can win it and you can loose it) is here as a goal for non dominant Major powers and as a warning for Dominant MP not to get too confident. [/B][/QUOTE] I dont agree. You MUST stop Nappy. Otherwise he will set up a rotation of defeated powers and become unstoppable. Britain can be defeated by invasion.

pfnognoff -> (5/10/2003 7:29:13 PM)
OK. That IS a matter of making strategy decisions for a certain game, I agree. Prussia and Austria should try to agree about a coalition to stop early French advance, and work together with Russia and G. Britain towards this common goal. But in any case this should not have any bearing on the rules regarding gaining and loosing dominant status.

Chiteng -> (5/10/2003 8:07:12 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pfnognoff [B]OK. That IS a matter of making strategy decisions for a certain game, I agree. Prussia and Austria should try to agree about a coalition to stop early French advance, and work together with Russia and G. Britain towards this common goal. But in any case this should not have any bearing on the rules regarding gaining and loosing dominant status. [/B][/QUOTE] It is exactly for this reason I prefer the 1792 scenario. Because you do NOT need to all gang up on France. Russia although powerfull, needs to conquer its own territories rather than attack anyone. Poland is quite fun.

pfnognoff -> (5/10/2003 8:33:36 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]It is exactly for this reason I prefer the 1792 scenario. Because you do NOT need to all gang up on France. Russia although powerfull, needs to conquer its own territories rather than attack anyone. Poland is quite fun. [/B][/QUOTE] Incorporating various scenarios is a good thig to do, but core rules for 1805-1815 EiA shouldn't be ommited for any reason. Gaining/loosing dominance is one such rule. All of us have some ideas about what rule is logical and what isn't, but comming to the mutual agreement about those is usually quite difficult :(, and if for no other reason this should be why original rule book must be pivotal in recreating EiA on the PC. All other ideas, variants and scenarios should be optional.

JRichert -> (5/11/2003 9:33:28 AM)
I have been lurking around these boards for months, but I need to speak up now... First off, I have played several games of EiA to completion, mostly with France, but also with Austria. The reason I mention this is that it is absolutely necessary to include dominant status in the game. The ability to both gain it and lose it. The reason for this is simple, if GB or Fr really screw up, they need to be penelized. If any of the other powers perform extraordinarily well they need to be rewarded. It also makes for more strategic decisions. Does Prussia create Poland? Should Austria accept France's request for peace, or should she try and take Lombardy so she can form the KoI so she can become dominant? Also, when fighting on mainland Europe, even if Austria or Prussia do well in one war against France, chances are that in the next war they will be defeated and lose everything they had gained. Giving them the ability to go dominant can change that dynamic. Second, the New Political Combinations/Kingdoms from the original game should be included. I would imagine the coding for each of the different combinations would not be all that different. However, each of these combinations play a role in the game. Also, you need to make sure that the multi-district minor powers are treated as such (Denmark and Norway, Sicily and Naples). Third, another item I have not seen is GBs power to suck VPs from an opposing power during the Victory Point phase. GB wins the game if it goes the full length and no one has been declared the winner. She was able to use 1/3 of the VPs she was due that phase and could reduce the number of VPs another plaer had by that number. It could be a very powerful weapon, especially if someone overbid for a country. Fourth, as someone mentioned before, I request that the basic EiA rules be coded and implemented, and then the EiH rules be added as an option. While many loved the EiH rules, some did not. While this is a niche game, you do not want to alienate any players by forcing them to play with rules they may not like. I have not seen this addressed anywhere, but has any thought been given to playing with the UMP rules with fewer than 7 players? I know some people find them clunky, but I know some people that would prefer to play with those rules rather than an AI. Finally, I think it is great that some one is finally making a computer version of the what I consider the greatest wargame of all time.

denisonh -> (5/11/2003 11:05:39 AM)
Since EiA is a great wargame, our expectations of the computer version are very high. But since we are "translating" the game into a new medium, there are rules that need/must be changed to accomodate this, as well as rules that will change for the better because of the transfomation to a computer medium. It is my sincerest hope that the flavor of EiA is maintained, and the change to the new genre can accomplish some things to make it better than the original. (was "bidding" in the original rule set BTW?) Yes, I said "better than the original". Limitations from a boardgame in terms of non-player activities and bookkeeping intensive activities stand to be improved in the computer version. And if not, they should be. If we get too narrow in focus of what it should and shouldn't be, then we will get a "MOO3", instead of the kick @ss game we all expect. Of course, if you expect the absolute direct translation, you will be disappointed in any case, since that is not a realistic expectation in regards to every aspect of the game.

JRichert -> (5/11/2003 10:36:28 PM)
What was wrong with MOO3, aside from being a different way of playing the game rather than micromanaging everything? I am all for upgrading EiA, HOWEVER, the way to do it is by building it up from the main game. Create the basic game, which would be a direct EiA port (with all the bells and whistles), and then add the options on top of this chassis. For example, EiH rules National Aspiration rules Advanced Naval Combat Hulks Increased leader casualties UMP rules I feel the UMP rules are important for two reasons... I have played both with multiple major powers and UMP rules, and the UMP rules are a bit more natural. Playing with multiple major powers you basically create Superstates that are inseparable. With UMPs you do not have Russia being GBs lackey on land, or Turkey becoming an extension of France for 10 years. UMPs enable other powers to exert some degree of control of a country within reason. They cannot run it into the ground. Just my .02.

ZONER -> (5/12/2003 6:14:38 AM)
My two Cents I feel that the core rules should be followed as much as possible. Deviations should only occur out of necessity. Rule variations should be introduced through option toggles that can be turned on and off. This will allow two things: there are strong opions on certian rules that some people just won't live without. Toggles would have the benifit of letting people play the game they are acustom to and draw a larger customer base. Second it would give you the oppertunity to add to the game in future patches/mods. I noticed in the original post a comment about time required to do programming, I realize that inorder to be profitable you cannot drag a product out over a long period of time, but I hope that shortcuts in streamlinning rules to make for easier programming does not occur.

Harald -> (5/13/2003 4:22:51 PM)
As a regular Turkey player: Feudal corps is a must. All rules from EiA has to be incorporated into the game ie creating new political combos. Otherwise the game will not be interesting.

Foro -> (5/14/2003 12:40:05 AM)
Hello all, i am new to this forum so its my first post here. Having played EiA mostly with friends from my hometown i am a bit worried about AI diplomacy. For me diplomacy is and allways was a key element in this game and its also the most "human" part of it. Talking with enemy, neutral or allied major powers, tricking them, making strong allies who keep on your side when you keep your promises or seeing major powers losing land, power and money because sometime earlier in the game they tricked a so called ally and didnt keep its promises (picking surrender conditions granted to the other allied power in the dipomacy phase for example) are things a computer AI cant simulate. Will the AI remember a major power who took a conditioal surrender from an enemy leaving the AI alone and subject to a distrous defeat? Will it react differently to the human in the future? Even trying to describe it is difficult for me (or maybe my knowledge of the english language is not sufficient ;p) Am i missing something allready mentioned in other threads maybe ? Or is it just my style of play that i think its dang important ? Well I hope you have some answers for me Thx in advance :)

Von Rom -> (5/16/2003 7:13:40 AM)
One major thing I would like to see included in this game would be for ALL or almost ALL files in the game to be open to gamers so they can be modded/changed/enhanced with a simple hex editor like notepad. Just take a look at Paradox, which makes all of its games very accessible to modders. No game maker/scenario designer can possibly take into account all of the variables/ideas/and abilities that exist in the gaming community. I would suggest that AI files, sound files, music files, leader files, battle files, as well picture files, etc, etc all be left open for modders. It would also be great if a scenario editor can also be included. Nothing sells a game faster than for people to see all kinds of additions/new scenarios/enhancements being made available for a game. There is a wealth of knowledge and abilities in the wargaming community. A modder-friendly EiA would go a long way to tapping into this community. Cheers!

Le Tondu -> Hmmm (5/16/2003 7:41:48 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom [B]One major thing I would like to see included in this game would be for ALL or almost ALL files in the game to be open to gamers so they can be modded/changed/enhanced with a simple hex editor like notepad. Just take a look at Paradox, which makes all of its games very accessible to modders. No game maker/scenario designer can possibly take into account all of the variables/ideas/and abilities that exist in the gaming community. I would suggest that AI files, sound files, music files, leader files, battle files, as well picture files, etc, etc all be left open for modders. It would also be great if a scenario editor can also be included. Nothing sells a game faster than for people to see all kinds of additions/new scenarios/enhancements being made available for a game. There is a wealth of knowledge and abilities in the wargaming community. A modder-friendly EiA would go a long way to tapping into this community. Cheers! [/B][/QUOTE] What nice thoughts. I'd say that he is onto something. Good going Von Rom.

mmurray821 -> (5/16/2003 10:20:33 PM)
Yes, I will always buy a game with modding/editors over a game that does not have them. It really opens up the replay value. Cudoos to Von Rom for the idea. :D

Black Hat -> (5/17/2003 4:58:30 AM)
The other "new" Kingdoms are important to France. They allow you to munipulate at +2 and add the +1 for creation to stay in or regain the highier point boxes durning extened peace. Without the minipulation it pushes france to war more.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125