RE: Economic Phase and OOB (Full Version)

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



Message

Camile Desmoulins -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/3/2004 10:40:01 AM)

It is very important to follow the order in the economic phase conscientiously, because if important problems take place, certainly. [sm=00000116.gif]

The question that I ask myself is if the Civil Disorder will allow or it will be considered as option. [&:]



oahunick -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/3/2004 11:22:26 AM)

Ardilla:

Your opinion and choices on the National Cards is appreciated by myself. But I think you would be pulling your hair out trying to campaign in a "traditional" EiA playgroup.

We normally have classroom size dry-erase whiteboard with all Manpower and economic information readily available for scrutinization and evaluation. With the GM running this proverbial "big-board" there was actually no need for the individual sheets. Monitoring the "big-board" and guaging troop strength helped that 45 minutes we all face between turns move faster. But to the point - and I think

Carnifex had it spot on - public is the general rule for all wargames from A&A to EiA unless SPECIFIED.

You say you could play "traditional" as well as your house rules but I suspect you along with countless others would slowly fragment off into your own specialities.

Like you, I would want to try my hand at "secret, toal FOG o' War variants but my heart would clamor for the good old days of the busy war room with the "big-board" for all to see!!!
Here's to agreeing to disagree Ardilla .....
Let Matrix make one of us happy.

Take care everbody!



ardilla -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/3/2004 12:28:33 PM)

Why MG should make only one of us happy?!?!?

Leave it like optional and make us all happy [:D] if the "traditional players" dont mind [;)]

I feel sorry if I bother all of you with this, but as I read, I and my playmates we are not the only ones we play that way.

Regards and let MG do their work, I will be happy with any of the ways they decided to implemented.



Roads -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/9/2004 7:45:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Just using the definition of the word "should". "Should" means that is the usual path, but not the only or required one, whereas "must" means it is the only and required path.

I suspect this may be a nasty little Americanism. The rules weren't written by people who use American English. The first entry of the OED for 'should' is:
quote:

used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness

interesting how 'obligation' comes first.

I firmly believe that the rules call for public strengths.

However, I also think that for a board game it made sense to have these things public due to issues of errors or cheating. However, once those problems are out of the picture it makes much more sense for the OOB cards to be private.



Mark Breed -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/9/2004 8:06:14 PM)

No where do the rules indicate that players may examine the National Card of any other player. They indicate that the National Card should be laid beside the map. However, a player could, using the numeric counters, easily hide his strength by putting a "1" as the top counter of the strength for each infantry, cavalry, etc. of a corps. And, again, no where in the rules does it state that a player may examine the other players' National Card nor does it state that the strength must be revealed other than once a battle is fought.

So, tell me where in the rules does it say that a player's specific corps strength is known by all other players otherwise. Even the fleet strength is indicated as SHOULD be known because any player can see which specific fleet is on the map versus on the National Card.

Regards,
Mark



Murat -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/10/2004 2:17:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Just using the definition of the word "should". "Should" means that is the usual path, but not the only or required one, whereas "must" means it is the only and required path.

I suspect this may be a nasty little Americanism. The rules weren't written by people who use American English. The first entry of the OED for 'should' is:
quote:

used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness

interesting how 'obligation' comes first.

I firmly believe that the rules call for public strengths.

However, I also think that for a board game it made sense to have these things public due to issues of errors or cheating. However, once those problems are out of the picture it makes much more sense for the OOB cards to be private.


Well, there was some selective editing of the OED entry but let everyone decide for themselves what "should" means:
http://www.onelook.com/

Like I said before, there is no "Court of EiA" so break out the die at the start of each game and see how you are playing.



Roads -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/10/2004 11:00:34 PM)

Kind of harsh to call it selective editing - I said that it was the first entry, and that's exactly what the first entry says. Anyway, I do think there is a pretty big difference between British and American usage of 'should', and I'm sort of figuring that the Australians follow the Brits.



oahunick -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/14/2004 11:08:35 AM)

Although there is no EiA court, the Official EiA mailing list (hundreds of diehards) came to consensus that the obvious intent was National Cards = public knowledge.

* Roll a die or draw straws for something so integral to the game?
* Let players vote on which method they want before an 1805 campaign?

This is EiA - not your rinky dink A&A "house game" that can be tinkered with.

I'm slowly beginning to see who is serious and committed to the integrity of the game - and who is not.

Leaving this massive rule (and I sympathathize with those who find the spirit of the rule as not fun and providing little FOG o' War) up to individuals will be the deathknell of the CEiA.

True or False? Please circle the correct answer:

Even if the public National Cards rule was in black and white and not inferred as it is now, many players would still say, "Hey, this is a dumb rule and it's more fun to play "secret".

T F



Murat -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/14/2004 11:29:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oahunick

This is EiA - not your rinky dink A&A "house game" that can be tinkered with.



Ummm....the game DEVELOPERS tinkered with it first when they modified the rules. Since then there have been MANY MANY tinkerings including EiH and several awesome scenarios, many of which were improvements over something that did not work "right" for the people playing it. This is a game and as such is open to modification and improvement. Just because you like public everything does not mean your way is the only way, or even the correct way, it IS a way to play. You are advocating forcing everyone to play the game the way you want it played and denying people the option of your way or a fog of war way.

[:-] Just because a majority of lemmings jump off a cliff, does not mean they are doing the smart thing (and I know lemmings don't jump off cliffs, they get pushed [:D] )



ardilla -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/14/2004 3:56:49 PM)

What it is your deal?!?!?

Do not make us play the same way you play.

As you can tell from the rules, there are many optative rules in the game, upgrades and so on that had been added because of common sense, historical facts, or whatever.

So, doesnt matter the way you look at it, THERE ARE GOING TO BE rules that have to been voted at the start of a game.
So, one more check box for FOW and economic papers it is not a big deal.

There is no such an "integrity" of the game danger or whatever you think of.

I, and almost 20 more people that I know we have been playing with hidden economic sheets and armies.

And we are happy and enjoyed many games.

Our actual game we decided to let the armies sheet be public and we voted for it.
And at the start of 1810 we realize that it is more fun to play with FOW.

I am sorry but this game is not like Risk, there are many, many rules, many, many optional ones and many, many home rules that after many years are part of the game for many people, and I not only talking for myself and my friends.

So let MG make us all happy.
Regards.



pfnognoff -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/14/2004 9:14:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oahunick

Even if the public National Cards rule was in black and white and not inferred as it is now, many players would still say, "Hey, this is a dumb rule and it's more fun to play "secret".

T F


I would go with "True" on this. But, I would also count myself in those people saying it's a dumb rule. In all wargames it is allways nice to be surprised ocasionally by a good move from your opponents and keeping builds secret makes it happen. Original FoW with both army roster and eco build sheets being secret is a way to go.

Also, important to note is that EiA is a game where seven people must find it intereting enough to keep playing for the long period of time, so I am hoping MG will include as many optional settings as possible to make everyone happy. Voting on optional rules is integral part of EiA, and with PBeM play there will allways be enough opponents with the same optional prefferences to be happy with all voted for, at least I hope it sells enough copies [:)]



megalomania2003 -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/15/2004 1:57:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oahunick
Although there is no EiA court, the Official EiA mailing list (hundreds of diehards) came to consensus that the obvious intent was National Cards = public knowledge.
T F


If you look at the faq on the EIA yahoo-group you would find that it says that the wording only implies that the strength is public and most players prefer to play secret (exceptions ships)



YohanTM2 -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/15/2004 4:54:22 PM)

I think if you want to play with secret capabilities you need to add some spying capability. On the time scale this game is based on there is ample opportunity for strategic spying. Thinking that all troop strengths etc. should be 100% is just not realistic.

I would prefer to play the public game unless some time of spy option was also included. The current FOW is great, although one of my closest friends would disagree with me 100% here [8D]



Roads -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 1:11:58 AM)

quote:


True or False? Please circle the correct answer:

Even if the public National Cards rule was in black and white and not inferred as it is now, many players would still say, "Hey, this is a dumb rule and it's more fun to play "secret".

I'd go with False FOR FACE TO FACE. I don't think the reasons that make public National Cards sensible for a board game apply for a computer game, or even for a GMed game.



vonpaul -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 6:36:18 AM)

our group plays with public national cards. Makes sense to me that army counters have their designations in secret on the back and fleet markers have theirs listed on the front, but they are ALL listed on the national cards.



oahunick -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 11:51:02 AM)

VonPaul, you are right to pick up on Rowland's intent with the corps counter backside designation.

Ardilla: Do you also vote on if countries like Turkey can't select the cordon chit? Do not confuse options like Channel Crossing Arrow and the like with core fundamentals that will shake the game from its foundation. There must be uniformity in the Public vs. Secret if we want CEiA to grow and become something special amongst others unfamiliar with our great game. Anyone can play chess around the world ... ya know why? No one asks, hey, do you play "standard, advanced, secret, French, or club rules! It's a universal game which is the best kind!

Megalo: Consensus WAS achieved through ALL of the inferences. Carnifex will attest to this. [:)]

'Noff: The players will come to the game, not the other way around ... if it is a quality game, which we all know we have. [;)]

Take care everyone, no hard feelings, but I hope Matrix only makes one side happy - even if it is not the public side.



ardilla -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 6:24:05 PM)

Excuseme, but I dont find such a great difference of the rules between the public and the secret game....

You can play chess with a clock for time turns or just an amateur way [:)]

My point is that we are going to vote before each game many optional rules that are included with the original game, so without the public vs. secret option, you will have to ask:
"Do you play CEiA with optional rules, without, only the first 5, o numbers...."

Unless MG had added all the optional rules into the game, besides the EiH ones....

EiH it is another point, there are many other optional rules that, with time, as Marshall said, will be added in patches into the original game....

I am sorry, but EiA can not be compared with chess, risk or whatever, since there is a forum to discuss unclear rules and everyday there are question, another forum, EiH where there is going on an upgrade of the original rules and has many adepts, not just 10 guys and currently are developing the version 6.0

Well, this is my point of view, and you have your point of view and neither you gonna make me change or I am going to change your point of view.

It is all in MG´s hands!!!! (Marshall give us an answer when you come back!)

Best regards.



shanebosky -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 7:28:57 PM)

Isn't it true that the National Cards only display the MAXIMUM/POTENTIAL strength of the corps, not the ACTUAL strength? In this case, who cares if the National cards are displayed, because they have fixed numbers on them. I think, however, that a country's money and manpower should be 'secret' (if you wanna know, look at the map and count it up), and also economic purchases should be secret (ships excepted), since the computer is in control and players cannot pad the reinforcement sheets. Otherwise, I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about.
Incidentally, I also think the EIH Army Restructuring rules were absolutely great (and provided a much better historical framework), and should definitely be included at least as an option...even though this might be considered playing Chess without a timer.



Murat -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 7:44:23 PM)

Basically what we are talking about is whether you should or should not know the exact make-up of that corps you are about to attack. Believe it or not this is vague in the rules. Fleets are expressly stated to be public knowledge but armies are not. Oahu and others feel that army strength should be public info. I (and others) feel that a "fog of war" should prevail where you do not know the strength of armies. Yohan wants an inacurate report of strength by way of spies or scouts of some sort (which I also indicated was acceptable with cavalry range).

Once that was established, the argument moved to Oahu stating that armies must be public period and that the game should not include a fog of war option for those that do not play that way. Several people took exception to this and stated that making this particular aspect an option was a better way to go. And that is basically where we are.

(Except of course having the option is the right way to go and if you disagree you are a heathen who must be burned at the stake by order of the Spanish Inquisition [:D])



pfnognoff -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 8:22:50 PM)

quote:

The Ultimate Triple Alliance??

1) Father Prussia
2) Mother Russia
3) Baby Turkey


oahunick:

Nice signature [8D]

I have one question though, who pays for all those troops? [X(][:)]

That would be one game worth playing with public eco build sheets, so we can all watch them squeeze every last penny from their poor subjects.

But, on the other hand, I woudn't like to be Austria in that game [;)]



YohanTM2 -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/16/2004 9:05:53 PM)

quote:

EIH Army Restructuring rules


Can you explain or copy a link to this particular EiH rule?

Thanks



oahunick -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/17/2004 7:20:43 AM)

There is indeed some tough talk on this topic which is good. [:@]

Murat - well done, that was a good concise status of the 3-way "pitched battle" we have.
Comparing the Quest for Public National cards to the Sp. Inq. is a tad over the top. I actually concede that secret builds and troop strength is an entertaining variance of the game. But I believe the silent majority enjoy the "big board", socially interactive game - the one ADG implied or inferred depending on your slant.
I did get tired of the secret contingent hiding behind the Original Rules lack of specificity. At least most are now saying "yeah I know, but it's still better our way!"

There are 39 optional rules and that does not count morale calcs. Not to mention EiH options. I hope Marshall creates some uniformity and maybe offers 10 options and makes some decisions with the rest, like New Pol. Combos, militia conversion, guard commitment, etc.

Eg: Make the decision on Nappy's declining ratings! But leave the crossing arrows as one of the 10 options.

But please make the decision, THE VERY HEAVY, HEAVY, DECISION on public cards for us ... I will play regardless even if there is no big-board![:(]

Take care everyone.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/17/2004 4:34:49 PM)

It's very interesting the different reasons people are going to be buying this game.


Groups:
1) Seems a fair chunk of folks want EiA so they can basically play via PBEM with the old group of buds that can never get together anymore. They want to play with the same rules they always have.

2) Guys that are relatively new or totally new to EiA and are just looking for a strong Napoleonic Computer game.

3) Old fans of EiA that never could get the 7 players together and are looking forward to playing against a wide audience. Don't neccesarily want a lot of options as they are looking for a consistent balanced game.

I'm probably a bit of 1) and 3)



mattbirra -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/17/2004 4:55:09 PM)

LOL Yohan ... give me a (1) [:'(]



ardilla -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/17/2004 6:08:06 PM)

Hey Yohan,

I think you are missing a couple of groups of people. [8D]

4) Those ones who can get together, but since we are not 2 players for nation (too much asking to get together 14 people), we have different status and different jobs it is too complicated to keep up a Grand Campaing Game and I didnt mention to find a place to leave the board or write it down after each game and close the game!!

5) And the adicts to the game, those who will love to play more than one game at the same time!!!
Since it is very difficult to have more than one copy of the game and even more a place to have the boards set up [:D]
Allright, you can do it with a cyberboard, but it is a pain in the neck to carry on more than one game even that way!!

BTW, for those who are very interested in the realistic frame of the game, you may look for a player from each of the countries in the game!!![;)]



Murat -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/17/2004 8:27:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oahunick

I hope Marshall creates some uniformity and maybe offers 10 options and makes some decisions with the rest, like New Pol. Combos, militia conversion, guard commitment, etc.



I also do not want to be checking 50 boxes of options. I am in favor of most optional rules just being put into the game, but I would keep EcoManip an option since, while I like playing it, some people feel it is an "artificial" way to keep up your VP (which is what is was MOSTLY used for in our games). Obviously box 2 would be FoW [;)] I will reserve judgment on the other 8 for now but I am truly ambivalent about naval rules (our games usually have some naval battles at the start and then the navies are basically relegated to transport duty for some reason).

Oh yeah, 1 and 4 are similar to me and it is basically my situation. Had a group of about 10! people who would play every Saturday during school (allowed for "subs" and people to take breaks from games) although 4 of us really were the hardcore ALWAYS playing crowd. Sooooo......I want this for reason 1/4 [:)]



YohanTM2 -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/17/2004 10:17:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ardilla

Hey Yohan,

I think you are missing a couple of groups of people. [8D]

4) Those ones who can get together, but since we are not 2 players for nation (too much asking to get together 14 people), we have different status and different jobs it is too complicated to keep up a Grand Campaing Game and I didnt mention to find a place to leave the board or write it down after each game and close the game!!

5) And the adicts to the game, those who will love to play more than one game at the same time!!!
Since it is very difficult to have more than one copy of the game and even more a place to have the boards set up [:D]
Allright, you can do it with a cyberboard, but it is a pain in the neck to carry on more than one game even that way!!

BTW, for those who are very interested in the realistic frame of the game, you may look for a player from each of the countries in the game!!![;)]


But Ardilla, I'm Canadian so would be on the outside looking in. Unless of course as a colony I could play Great Britain? Come to think of it with Quebec I could also play France [:D]



carnifex -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/17/2004 10:35:46 PM)

quote:

I also do not want to be checking 50 boxes of options


I on the other hand do not mind checking 50 or even 100 options. You only have to do it once, and it's not like you're going to be starting a new game every other day. Besides, the game could remember what you chose last time.



Irish Guards -> RE: Economic Phase and OOB (9/18/2004 3:15:10 AM)

Anyone ever play BGG or BGW by Talonsoft. The actual OOB and playability of the ENTIRE game is there, and up for grabs.

I am quite sure as the game progresses we will see options form MG. Bernadotte went 2 Swe. Leadres support minors. Is a time factor that as we see .... Navies .. frigate and privateers . easily send Ney to minor if u want to incur losses from blockading fleet.

This game needs weather in Sea areas. When the French GOT out of harbor .. slipping past the blockading fleet. Usually got the asses handed to em , and pour a little gas on the fire spaniards usually. alwats got ships to lose. Lots of frigates and privateers galore, to interdict GB production ,,

Napoleon deteriorate in ability I think not . Ok Mack has to move to Ulm. This means when the poor bastard has to make a roll based on Macks abilities for surrender 134 stemming from no supply ( surrounded ) MG has to have solution for 1st turn of this game and results obtained negatives should apply in supply also . as well as Leader and Cav. Tis based on morale and armies .. !!!

That's why u wanna be Nappy ..

Hey Yohan I wan to play these guys ..They just experienced enough to be dangerous.

Send Kutuzov to Prussia, on cav corps, can he move w partisans.. ????

can cossacks force march ?? only Inf ??

In 1805 if that is where we will START GAME .. Spain and France are allied agin the Allies . OK.

Good gaming all when we actually .. git ta ply ,, Respect here ,,, huge undertaking for MG

[&o]

Take your assets in hand and try from the beginning of game .. Lets fight Trafaler again .

OOB would be very nice pls MG, I kinda need to know, would help greatly.

Thx

Irish Guards



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.21875