(Full Version)

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



Message


jnier -> (9/20/2003 11:39:02 PM)

[QUOTE=Le Tondu]I respectfully submit that FOW has to come in. This satellite view of Europe where the exact location of every land unit and every ship is known by every player at all times is just ludicrous. It is a mistake and only exists because a real and fair FOW could not be simulated (unlike now with a computer) when this game came out.

IMO, Fog of War is a must for every wargame. Without it, computer EiA will be a half completed wargame -no matter what the scale.[/QUOTE]


In my opinion the fog of war in the original was just about right. You knew the general location of all armies an navies. But you have [B]ZERO[/B] information about enemy strength. This is arguably more FOW than was present historically.

This is not a operational level game. Is is grand strategy and most operational and tactical matters have to be abstracted. And the reconnisance role that cavalry played is abstracted as a combat bonus for the side that has a signficantly greater amount of cavarly than the opponent. Again, this seems about right to me in a game of this scale.




shane -> (9/20/2003 11:56:18 PM)

Capitaine had some great points, particularly about how much of the era's FOW was in an area that would essentially be contained in a sector of the EIA map. I agree with Tondu though.
I think it would be great to have FOW, and the ability to set up spy networks (think I mentioned it in a different thread). e.g. Pay a certain amount, and an area (or several) and you're enlightened as to the rough contents. You'd know there are 4 corps there, maybe who the leader is, maybe a rough estimate of the troops. They did pay all sorts of cash for this info back then. Certain countries pay more/less depending on the arena, e.g. Britain and France have it pretty easy setting up networks in most places, Turkey has it pretty rough, Spain might have difficulty setting up a network in the East, most countries have a hard time In Britain, etc. . The more you're willing to pay for an area, the more enlightened you are as to the contents 9and maybe surrounding areas, or obviously, the more areas you can spy on. Successfully place spies in a capital, and maybe get a rough idea of what that country is spending it's money on, etc. And then there's counter-espionage...!!
Also, IMO, the cavalry unit should be broken up into two or three units. Heavy cavalry should cost more and help much more in battle (higher morale?), while light cavalry is more useful in recon--they'd act like spies for the surrounding areas, which would be counteracted by how much light cavalry a nearby enemy army has.
Tied into this, I've always thought it would be cool to give factors an intrinsic Fighting Value. That way, Britain's Infantry might be godly with morale and FV, but it's Cavalry would not have the FV of France's or Prussia's. I think this would add more depth to the game by giving it more diversity, behind the curtain so to speak. For this, each factor would that's created would have to have it's own file?--I know it involves a lot, but what game doesn't? Maybe FV could be influenced too, for example by having 20 factors spend a few months idle under Davout, their FV's would go up .1 or something.
One question that I have for Bart (and I hope his head hasn't hit the desk by now): In the comp game, will with EIH option of army restructuring be incorportated? If Austria gives an unconditional to France, it can then restructure it's army. Prussia can do the same, etc. I thought this was one of the best improvements of EIH over EIA.
Sorry about the length guys.
Shane




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125