Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/19/2003 4:46:29 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

But you and I are best buds, soapy! I only yank your chain a little, and you mine. ;) :D :cool:

As to that linked map: YUCK

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 31

- 7/19/2003 6:32:38 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

soapy, here's a little blurb I found at ConsimWorld regarding the issue of the relative popularity of 3R and EiA at an upcoming convention:

quote:

A World at War ("AWAW", the combination of A3R and RS) is in the Worthington Room. We will be playing it for real because by that time the final versions of the rules should at least be submitted to GMT and unable to be changed.

BTW, there are only two people who will be playing A3R and about 16+ playing AWAW.

Paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel A Tamburo - 01:24pm May 5, 2003 PST (#809 of 1296)
The Ultimate Joelist. Big fan of the WBC.
Hi,

However, you'll have more room in there, because Empires in Arms is no more (nobody stepped up to GM it).

LOL, couldn't find anyone to GM EiA, the most popular strategic game there is, yet the 3R "premier product" is still hot hot hot!!

BTW, I'm not saying one is better, but just that it's far from clear. Obviously, EiA is a good game. 3R and its progeny has clearly been more popular. Imagine if we'd have had a Napoleonic game with that much thought and detail put into it? Maybe Matrix's EiA will do that; I'm hoping anyway...

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 32

- 7/19/2003 9:17:22 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Maybe Matrix's EiA will do that; I'm hoping anyway... [/B][/QUOTE]

... but I'm not holding my breath at this point. The deafening silence other than Marshall's general pronouncements from time to time is worrisome to me ...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 33

- 7/24/2003 2:24:11 AM

soapyfrog

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline

I dunno, I find 3R is not even as good as TSRs ETO/PTO...

But I haven't looked at any of the new stuff.

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 34

- 7/24/2003 4:38:12 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

One point is, soapy, that people are going to enjoy different games and, to a certain extent, their relative enjoyment will determine perceived quality. IOW, it is possible, I think, to define "good games" and "bad games" in a general sense. However, among those considered good, obviously there will be a great latitude among players who are looking for differing experiences. Personally, I do not like games as much that permit ahistorical diplomacy to a large degree. Therefore, I was more interested in EiA's combat and logistical mechanisms, as well as the hard political rules, as opposed to the pure "Diplomacy" elements involved.

OTOH, 3R (whatever iteration) gave you a historical situation, and rules that limited what nations could do diplomatically, while still allowing some degree of diplomatic maneuvering. Just not as drastic, for that would change the nature of WWII. The "old" 3R is obviously dated, but if you would like to see the "state of the art", go to GMT's P500 site and follow the links to "A World at War". Pretty impressive IMO. :)

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 35