(Full Version)

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

Message

Hoche -> (10/14/2003 7:47:19 AM)
[QUOTE=Le Tondu]Poppycock! ;) Are we forgetting that this is a multiplayer game???? LOL! The real Napoleonic Wars were won by a coalition of nations and NOT by any single nation. (Don't let the propoganda fool you.) It is clear that not one single nation could win it all by themselves, most of all England. That is my dear friends, a [COLOR=Navy]group of nations[/COLOR] gathered together to defeat their chosen enemy. There is no reason why a different kind of coalition that could even include France cannot happen. Whoever plays this game can choose their own bad guy to beat up on and it doesn't always have to be France. [COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][B][U][I]YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS PLAY HISTORICALLY.[/I][/U][/B][/COLOR] You get have your diplomacy go in any direction that you want. As for me, when I will play this game, I won't care so much about winning ---as a seperate player. I will care about the coalition that I am part of. There is a BIG distinction there. Some other player can have the most VPs. As long as I'm allied to him/her, I will be a winner too. Anyways, what does it really matter if you are having fun playing the game?????[/QUOTE] How many EiA games have you played to come to this enlightend conclusion? You don't have to play the game a certain way. But due to the dynamics of the game there are some consistanly good stratagies. Not all stratagies will lead to victory but some will ensure defeat. People would be wise to take notes from those who have played before. As it is with all games people get better faster if they listen to more experienced players and learn the subtle do's and don'ts of a game. The problem with playing just to be allied with the winner is that you will most likely be played like a fiddle by a master player. He will use you to get points for himself. The only thing that prevents that is when people play for self interest. Don't be fooled! In 1814 the Quadruple Alliance was made up of nations with different goals. They didn't even all agree on what to do with Napoleon. They almost went to war over the issues of Saxony and Poland. Russia wanted Poland, Prussia wanted Saxony,Austria was wary of Russia and Prussia didn't want them to have either, and Great Britain wanted to prevent any one of their allies from becoming too powerfull. Remember that in 1812 Prussia and Austria were allies with France. They only switched sides when it was in their best interest. Countries didn't form alliances for the common good but when their individual goals line up with other nations. The same holds in EiA. That is why it is such a good game.

Wellington12347 -> Trade (10/14/2003 7:39:02 PM)
[QUOTE=Le Tondu]Poppycock! ;) Are we forgetting that this is a multiplayer game???? LOL! The real Napoleonic Wars were won by a coalition of nations and NOT by any single nation. (Don't let the propoganda fool you.) It is clear that not one single nation could win it all by themselves, most of all England. That is my dear friends, a [COLOR=Navy]group of nations[/COLOR] gathered together to defeat their chosen enemy. There is no reason why a different kind of coalition that could even include France cannot happen. Whoever plays this game can choose their own bad guy to beat up on and it doesn't always have to be France. [COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][B][U][I]YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS PLAY HISTORICALLY.[/I][/U][/B][/COLOR] You get have your diplomacy go in any direction that you want. As for me, when I will play this game, I won't care so much about winning ---as a seperate player. I will care about the coalition that I am part of. There is a BIG distinction there. Some other player can have the most VPs. As long as I'm allied to him/her, I will be a winner too. Anyways, what does it really matter if you are having fun playing the game?????[/QUOTE] I will certainly agree that France was defeated by a coalition--I never argued otherwise. However the linchpin of that coalition was the OTHER power of the period: GB. Though I will not attempt to put words in Le Tondu's mouth it would seem that it is not as important to him to gain VPs and formally "win" (having allies with excess VPs does not allow a player with deficient VPs to "win," the rules are explicit on this). If one has more fun fighting wars then that is certainly a legitimate rationale for spending the time playing the game. However, as I stated, some players will not be motivated by "winning" and this will thus change the natural dynamic inherent in the game. If most players are motivated by VPs, then typically the game will follow the flow I described. There is still plenty of room for forging your own, unique, diplomatic situation though. Jason

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375