Certainly a combination of friends dominating a game is a problem but in my experience the more common fault of multiplayer diplomacy is from when too much or too rapid player interaction is possible. What happens in such a case is when one player starts to pull ahead all the other players combine to keep him down (like a bucket of crabs, when one starts to get out the others pull him back in). While some interaction is essential for the diplomacy to mean anything the level must be hedged and balanced so that it becomes one of several mechanisms in the game not the only factor that matters. In a worst bucket of crabs case the game becomes a popularity contest where the player who antagonized the fewest others is eventually allowed to win. Not a satisfying result.
Diplomacy has a few other drawbacks, it’s slow for one thing and doesn’t work as well over the net. That’s why I suggest you don’t simply rely on the interaction of diplomacy and advanced planning to give your game legs.
From reading design notes over the years it strikes me how seldom designers seem to think about games in the abstract. I seems to me that while marketing and mechanisms, history and presentation are well understood they are seldom given a solid underpinning of game theory. Like a film with strong characters great performances, sumptuous sets and superb camerawork and no plot or meaning to speak of. It’s sad to see so much work that’s gone into programming so many poorly conceived computer games.
September update!
Moderator: MOD_EIA
...since you've said "other games"...
Although I love Napoleonics, my heart is more into Frederick the Great than the little Corsican.
The Wars of Austrian Succession was a period with as much, if not more political flim-flammery (that's short for duplicity, self-servicing, and out and out letting somebody else take the rap) and combat as the Napoleonic era.
The Players:
Prussia, led by Frederick the Great whose army though not the largest, stands head and shoulders qualitatively above the rest. He takes characteristic Prussian diplomatic duplicity a few steps farther than his forefathers ever could.
Austria, Led by Maria Theresa is a less than functional giant with a bankrupt exchequer (hope I said that right) whose neighbors circle around like sharks looking for a piece to bite off.
France, the richest power, palsied militarily, and led by a king who is just a bit out of touch. EVen a few Great men like de Saxe and Broglie can't do everything.
Spain, the poorer Bourbons seek to put their two sons on thrones in Italy, with French help, at the expense of Austria. together, the Bourbons show the world that two heads are worse than one.
Bavaria, having won the Imperial crown in election seeks just a bit more...too bad the Emperor is of Poor health.
Britain, trying to stay atop the European body politic. Her troops on the continent prove themselves well, and only Gallic bungling causes failure in situations where Redcoated discipline won't help.
Piedmont, this almost forgotten power is led by the astute King Charles who shows himself adept at playing off his allies and enemies against eachother.
look at that...7 nations again...
C' mon Marshall...give it a thought. I know it probably wouldn't make any money for matrix...but it would be fun to see this era brought to light again.
Cheers!
Although I love Napoleonics, my heart is more into Frederick the Great than the little Corsican.
The Wars of Austrian Succession was a period with as much, if not more political flim-flammery (that's short for duplicity, self-servicing, and out and out letting somebody else take the rap) and combat as the Napoleonic era.
The Players:
Prussia, led by Frederick the Great whose army though not the largest, stands head and shoulders qualitatively above the rest. He takes characteristic Prussian diplomatic duplicity a few steps farther than his forefathers ever could.
Austria, Led by Maria Theresa is a less than functional giant with a bankrupt exchequer (hope I said that right) whose neighbors circle around like sharks looking for a piece to bite off.
France, the richest power, palsied militarily, and led by a king who is just a bit out of touch. EVen a few Great men like de Saxe and Broglie can't do everything.
Spain, the poorer Bourbons seek to put their two sons on thrones in Italy, with French help, at the expense of Austria. together, the Bourbons show the world that two heads are worse than one.
Bavaria, having won the Imperial crown in election seeks just a bit more...too bad the Emperor is of Poor health.
Britain, trying to stay atop the European body politic. Her troops on the continent prove themselves well, and only Gallic bungling causes failure in situations where Redcoated discipline won't help.
Piedmont, this almost forgotten power is led by the astute King Charles who shows himself adept at playing off his allies and enemies against eachother.
look at that...7 nations again...
C' mon Marshall...give it a thought. I know it probably wouldn't make any money for matrix...but it would be fun to see this era brought to light again.
Cheers!
Jesus ...., with all respect. This closet germanism is allways killing me.
Marshall,
If the PC game follows the board game, if players moves are simultaneous how do you guys plan on incorporating that with nations that declare combined movement? Will there be some sort of "precedence" in the simultaneous moves, or will the power to declare combined movement be removed from the PC game altoghether, since it kind of looks like it may be redundant?
I can see it altering how sieges are handled as well. I was wondering how two allied nations stacked together would fight a siege combat, and who would gain control of the city if victorious. Kind of the same thing with port attacks. If the British send a fleet to attack a fleet in port, and the defender sends orders to move their fleets out to a sea area at the same time, will there be a chance to attack the ships in port?
The old rules were a bit dodgy in that unless you were French in the land phase, or Britain in the naval you always knew who you moved before, and who moved after you. But, the rules were also convenient in that they allowed for combined movement to somewhat offset this. I can see simultaneous movement strongly adversely affecting the French and the British, as they both would lose the major advantages they had in the board game.
Thanks
If the PC game follows the board game, if players moves are simultaneous how do you guys plan on incorporating that with nations that declare combined movement? Will there be some sort of "precedence" in the simultaneous moves, or will the power to declare combined movement be removed from the PC game altoghether, since it kind of looks like it may be redundant?
I can see it altering how sieges are handled as well. I was wondering how two allied nations stacked together would fight a siege combat, and who would gain control of the city if victorious. Kind of the same thing with port attacks. If the British send a fleet to attack a fleet in port, and the defender sends orders to move their fleets out to a sea area at the same time, will there be a chance to attack the ships in port?
The old rules were a bit dodgy in that unless you were French in the land phase, or Britain in the naval you always knew who you moved before, and who moved after you. But, the rules were also convenient in that they allowed for combined movement to somewhat offset this. I can see simultaneous movement strongly adversely affecting the French and the British, as they both would lose the major advantages they had in the board game.
Thanks
-
Marshall Ellis
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
- Location: Dallas
Great questions
The simultaneous movement does have some slight side effects to the movement declaration capabilities of FR and GBR and also combined movement. Frankly we haven't tackled this yet but some thoughts are:
The movement declaration capabilities may have to be replaced by some type of "initiative" type bonus for French lands units and English sea units.
We're looking to accomplish Combined movement by loaning some corps units to an ally for one turn. Essentially a command and control feature giving an ally temporary control of a corps so that they could move the unit on their turn.
Keep in mind that these are design ideas and are not final.
Great question ... keep'em coming please.
The movement declaration capabilities may have to be replaced by some type of "initiative" type bonus for French lands units and English sea units.
We're looking to accomplish Combined movement by loaning some corps units to an ally for one turn. Essentially a command and control feature giving an ally temporary control of a corps so that they could move the unit on their turn.
Keep in mind that these are design ideas and are not final.
Great question ... keep'em coming please.
Thanks for such a quick reply! I have to admit it's nice to know a company actually takes the time to reply to these threads.
I was thinking about the movement issue at work today, and the whole issue of playability vs. how close to the actual board game will be followed. I think in single player mode the idea of simultaneous movement won't really be a problem if you can allow a GB or FR player the option to choose his order of movement each turn before the AI kicks in. It kind of reminds me of the (very) old PC version of Risk, where you could choose the player # you wanted to be, and the game then revolved around that order. Otherwise, if you remove the FR and GB ability to decide their moves, they both lose the ability to perform a double move. I'm just thinking what an early-game allied PR/AU could do to a FR that can't react by taking a double move to whittle them down.
The only real problem I can see with simultaneous movement is in multiplayer mode, dealing with the issue of speed vs. playability. My personal opinion is that this game is on the middle ground of complexity, so having multiplayer simultaneous moves would certainly speed up play for those new to the game. However, many of us who have played EiA for years I am sure would like to see the option allowing the server admin to turn simultaneous movement off for multiplayer mode so it plays like the board game. The games may run a bit longer, but they would certainly run much faster than the way it is currently played by PBEM. Now that broadband access has increased, the ability to run a personal 24/7 dedicated server is greater than ever.Besides, if the admin and players want to run the game "old school" they (hopefully) already know what they are getting into lol. It would also bring the PC game closer to the board game for many of us who I am sure would play this at LAN parties.
I have to admit, the thought of playing EiA in multiplayer LAN mode where I don't have to look up all the charts and personally calculate morale and casulty losses anymore makes me want to reach for my wallet already lol.
Kudos to all of you for getting this off the ground.
Jerry
I was thinking about the movement issue at work today, and the whole issue of playability vs. how close to the actual board game will be followed. I think in single player mode the idea of simultaneous movement won't really be a problem if you can allow a GB or FR player the option to choose his order of movement each turn before the AI kicks in. It kind of reminds me of the (very) old PC version of Risk, where you could choose the player # you wanted to be, and the game then revolved around that order. Otherwise, if you remove the FR and GB ability to decide their moves, they both lose the ability to perform a double move. I'm just thinking what an early-game allied PR/AU could do to a FR that can't react by taking a double move to whittle them down.
The only real problem I can see with simultaneous movement is in multiplayer mode, dealing with the issue of speed vs. playability. My personal opinion is that this game is on the middle ground of complexity, so having multiplayer simultaneous moves would certainly speed up play for those new to the game. However, many of us who have played EiA for years I am sure would like to see the option allowing the server admin to turn simultaneous movement off for multiplayer mode so it plays like the board game. The games may run a bit longer, but they would certainly run much faster than the way it is currently played by PBEM. Now that broadband access has increased, the ability to run a personal 24/7 dedicated server is greater than ever.Besides, if the admin and players want to run the game "old school" they (hopefully) already know what they are getting into lol. It would also bring the PC game closer to the board game for many of us who I am sure would play this at LAN parties.
I have to admit, the thought of playing EiA in multiplayer LAN mode where I don't have to look up all the charts and personally calculate morale and casulty losses anymore makes me want to reach for my wallet already lol.
Kudos to all of you for getting this off the ground.
Jerry
I have no way of verifying this, but I’m pretty sure the French and English power to chose when they took their turn came about more by evolution than grand design.
In the real world, whatever that is, movement is of course simultaneous. For cardboard games, such movement is problematic; you can either have a you-go-I-go sequence, or an impulse based movement such as found in Star Fleet Battles. Most games go for the former as a matter of practical simplicity.
Given that is the only reasonable way board games can be played, the power to choose when to take a turn was simply a game mechanic to help simulate superior English/French command. As such, this power can be replaced with some other ability, such as the reference to a higher initiative.
In the real world, whatever that is, movement is of course simultaneous. For cardboard games, such movement is problematic; you can either have a you-go-I-go sequence, or an impulse based movement such as found in Star Fleet Battles. Most games go for the former as a matter of practical simplicity.
Given that is the only reasonable way board games can be played, the power to choose when to take a turn was simply a game mechanic to help simulate superior English/French command. As such, this power can be replaced with some other ability, such as the reference to a higher initiative.
Repo Man
I think, to keep simul. movement and to incorporate French and British benefits into the game, Marshall's comments about initiative seem right in line.
As much as I started out very opposed to the notion of simul. movement (as that is opposite of the way the board game is played), I must admit a definite growing interest in this method.
I look forward to more information.
As much as I started out very opposed to the notion of simul. movement (as that is opposite of the way the board game is played), I must admit a definite growing interest in this method.
I look forward to more information.
What's most compelling about simultaneous movement is the level of surprise that it invokes:
The Prussian army, led by Blucher, marches to the south to link up with Charles and a substantial Austrian force -- the perhaps being to move against Napoleon in force.
Scouts report a French force moving in from the west. More than 1,000 men, there appeared to be a corps (or whatever narrative, blah blah). Then comes the decisions -- and not necc. based on all the facts.
I think I could get into that.
Reknoy
The Prussian army, led by Blucher, marches to the south to link up with Charles and a substantial Austrian force -- the perhaps being to move against Napoleon in force.
Scouts report a French force moving in from the west. More than 1,000 men, there appeared to be a corps (or whatever narrative, blah blah). Then comes the decisions -- and not necc. based on all the facts.
I think I could get into that.
Reknoy
OPTIONS, OPTIONS AND MORE OPTIONS!!!!!
I consider myself an EiA purest. I would like the computer game to be as close to the original board game as possible. But I understand that not everyone is like me and they might be more interested in a quick game than a traditional game. I think the only solution for the comp game will be to include options that allow players to setup the game they way they want it.
I am currently in two different play-by-email games. In both games the groups are more interested in playing the game as close as possible to a face-to-face game than in a quick game. One of those games has been going on for 2.5 years and is still going. As I said before not everyone would be willing to do that but there are people who are.
If people want to take the time and play a traditional game then they should have the option. If there isn't an option for traditional EiA game I, along with many others, will be very disappointed.
I am currently in two different play-by-email games. In both games the groups are more interested in playing the game as close as possible to a face-to-face game than in a quick game. One of those games has been going on for 2.5 years and is still going. As I said before not everyone would be willing to do that but there are people who are.
If people want to take the time and play a traditional game then they should have the option. If there isn't an option for traditional EiA game I, along with many others, will be very disappointed.
It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke
-Edmund Burke
And of course, your Allied Corps and Division commanders would not necessarily execute your plan as you envision (whether by not receiving or misinterpreting the orders, as well as how vigorously they execute if they are aggressive or timid)Originally posted by Reknoy
What's most compelling about simultaneous movement is the level of surprise that it invokes:
The Prussian army, led by Blucher, marches to the south to link up with Charles and a substantial Austrian force -- the perhaps being to move against Napoleon in force.
Scouts report a French force moving in from the west. More than 1,000 men, there appeared to be a corps (or whatever narrative, blah blah). Then comes the decisions -- and not necc. based on all the facts.
I think I could get into that.
Reknoy
Whereas the French would execute the orders vigorously and timely (ahhh, the advantage of a better doctrine, staff system and leadership).
So if there is simultaneous movement, the Allied commander should prepare to be frustrated on not being able to execute complicated and difficult plans.
So if simulataneous movement is to work, the leadership and national modifiers with regards to executing instructions would have to be implimented. That may be a good way to replicate the French land advantage/British sea advantage.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC