Importance of inland port

[Etienne DAVOUT]

Sorry for the bad written English.
One could consider this as an 'add on' of the Antwerp-discussion.

If one accepts a 'not complete correct' map for a grand strategy game, how will you simulate the importance of an INLAND PORT when you place it at the open sea, vulnerable for a British amphibious attack?
Remember the British tried to capture the port in 1809. Because Antwerp was inland they landed in Holland (Walcheren) and the expedition failed.
With this map it will probably be possible to land directly in Antwerp.

Greetings from Belgium:(

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by Etienne DAVOUT
Sorry for the bad written English.
One could consider this as an 'add on' of the Antwerp-discussion.

If one accepts a 'not complete correct' map for a grand strategy game, how will you simulate the importance of an INLAND PORT when you place it at the open sea, vulnerable for a British amphibious attack?
Remember the British tried to capture the port in 1809. Because Antwerp was inland they landed in Holland (Walcheren) and the expedition failed.
With this map it will probably be possible to land directly in Antwerp.

Greetings from Belgium:(

Yes, this is a grand strategy game, and it is called EiA. If Matrix decides to allow mods to the orig. map, that's cool. Im all for adding as many OPTIONS as possible. However, this is not suppose to be a new game but a computer version of EiA. I think that default map should stay just like the EiA map.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by ryta1203
Yes, this is a grand strategy game, and it is called EiA. If Matrix decides to allow mods to the orig. map, that's cool. Im all for adding as many OPTIONS as possible. However, this is not suppose to be a new game but a computer version of EiA. I think that default map should stay just like the EiA map.

Well, I remember reading here that this is supposed to be computer EiA AND a new game with a lot of enhancements, some of which will come from EiH. The computer version of EiA is supposed to be there for those die-hards (apparently) like yourself. (You won't be cheated.) The enhanced version is supposed to there for those who want to move on (to something better, IMO.)

Now, one has to admit that if this computer version of EiA has one option or rule that EiA doesn't have, then all bets are off. It won't be EiA anymore. Computer version or not.

The BIGGEST problem in my opinion is Matrix Games' hoarding of information about this and other issues regarding this game.

What is this game really going to be like when we buy it?

The world wonders.

We've been told this and that in the past, then other things are said and now there simply isn't any clarity about the game. Heck, even the web-site appears to be hopelessly outdated. Is it any wonder that we might be confused????????

[Supervisor]

Well, my suggestion (and it is exactly what I am going to do) is to wait and see, as arrival times gets near, hopefully Matrix Games will tell us everything about the game, if not (I can't see why not, unless they are afraid to lose sales by telling you what product they put out), then I suggest you stick around the forums and see everyone elses input on the release.

I read somewhere on the forum that the first release will not be the final one, implying that it will almost be like a beta version just a little better (for $60) and then there will be a second release ($60, or $25 if you already have the original release). I don't know if Matrix is planning on sticking with this idea, if so, then I am certainly not going to buy the first release, just so they can get an additional 25 bucks out of my wallet. Sounds like something a cheap back alley company would do, not Matrix, but you never know.

[pasternakski]

Le Tondu, Ryta, I feel your pain. I initially gave up on this game when it became an EiA port instead of a new design, tried to re-invigorate my interest in it, then gave up on it again when the entire design discussion became "Should it be an exact replica of EiA or include optional elements from EiH or elsewhere."

Until some hard information shows up that persuades me to cough up sixty bucks, I am definitely in the "hard sell" camp.

[Le Tondu]

Wait is what I'll have to do.

I don't understand all the crazy secrecy. We're not Al Queda terrorists and what we want to know isn't all that specific. Just regular kinds of stuff that any other gaming company would put out about their product.

I have read stuff on this forum too. It seemed like in the beginning that information was freely given then some contradictions arose and we were all patient thinking that it would be cleared up --but nothing happened. Just silence. Whenever we were asked for input, we didn't hesitate. They asked for beta testers and folks jumped at the prospect of being one and what do we get? A darn news blackout.

That is why such a lack of clarity exists as to what this game will be. I just want to know what I'm gonna spend my money on.

Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so.

[Supervisor]

Maybe Matrix Games doesn't even know exactly what this game is going to be. I think that is probably more the case than anything, I mean come on, they don't even know for sure what graphics are going to be in the game, no less the options for REAL GAME PLAY. The release date has already been pushed back to October or possibly next year and summer 2003 isn't even over yet. I think this shows the stage that Matrix Games is in development with this game. Matrix is still writing the AI, PBEM, and TCP/IP code for the game. This game is early in it's development, there is no doubt in my mind about that. Not to say that is a bad thing (just a sad thing), or to down Matrix at all, just saying that is the way it is.

[pasternakski]

I agree with what you say, ryta, and always give Matrix and their design and development teams the benefit of the doubt. I also want to throw in a "salut" to Marshall Ellis, who seems to me, from his posts, to be a good guy who is working hard to bring this project to fruition.

I guess I ought to shut up and see what develops ... I'm just a little frustrated and impatient, I suppose.

More information would be nice, though ... those screenshots from a week or so ago were more worrisome than anything else.

[Supervisor]

I think impatience is probably what it is, and I also am feeling the same way, but that is not really Matrix's fault, I am just pumped that someone is actually trying to make a computer version of EiA.

Yeah, the funny thing about those screenshots is this: I don't think Matrix wanted to show them because they thought people would say that but everyone begged and begged for screenshots so they showed them and now everyone doesn't like them. LOL. It's a little ironic.

But I agree, I don't like the screenshots at all or the way the game looks setup and designed in those screenshots. They were horrific. It looked like every other $9.99 game I bought from 1996.

I will just have to wait and see the final screenshots. I just don't want to be dissappointed, which seems to be becoming the case. Oh well. I can always stick to the real deal.

[Pippin]

To be honest, if MG wanted they could sell you the game right now. However, I do not think they want to resort to *cough *cought 'Hasbro Tactics', leaving people with a poorly working game and having you stuck with it for the next decade, untill another poor version is released (and only realsed because of Windows issues).

MG wants to uphold a decent reputation so when push comes to shove I assume they would rather spend a year making a decent game you can enjoy for the next decade instead of cursing it.

In any case, I am trying to make sure there will be no problems with any naval issues. I have also noticed MG has taken some of my suggestions and already incorporated them into the game. Try getting *caugh *caugh makers like Hasbro to do that?

P.S. As for the graphics, it was mentioned already that MG prefers to leave graphics last.

[Supervisor]

Well, as far as I am concerned, since beta testers can't discuss any meat due to their "top secret", "national security" clearance, it is senseless for any of them to participate in this topic. If you can't say anything about the game, then don't. Don't tell me what a great job everyone is doing and then say "but I can't really tell you anything". Last news I heard was that there was no AI, no PBEM, and no TCP/IP, which means NO they can't "sell it to me right now" because I wouldn't buy it.

[pasternakski]

Thanks, Pippin, you always show yourself to be a dedicated, intelligent sort, and I appreciate your response, however limited it is.

Just don't expect me to go sticky wet because Matrix is not as lousy a publisher as Hasbro. Also, the design team showed graphics shots almost a year ago, and they are just as lousy now as they were then, and may, by appearances, be even worse.

If the person in charge thinks that this game design should start with mechanics, then spread graphics on at the end like peanut butter on bread, I am more worried now than previously. Much of the "heart and soul" of a period piece like this is how it presents itself, and I think that the mechanical design should be directly affected by the desired "look" and "feel" of the game.

See, when the project was first announced, this is what interested me. I heard people saying that a fresh, innovative approach to simulating this period of history was to be taken. It would be marked by imaginative touches, intriguing game mechanics, and beautiful, functional graphics. "Napoleonic Wars," I thought, would be a crowning achievement of design that Matrix could point to with pride as a "cutting edge" product that would be part of the renaissance of computer wargaming Matrix has styled itself to be a leader in.

Now what do we have? A rehash of an old board game that has a loyal, but niche, following. This appears to be a port of a game that threatens neither to attract a new audience nor to satisfy the old.

I'm sorry, folks, I'm skeptical. I likely will buy the game because I'm a die-hard grognard who is employed and can afford to take the chance, but I will be hard to persuade that it is an excellent product, given the path its development has taken thus far (to the extent I have been allowed to perceive it).

[Capitaine]

You know, a lot of venting about the use of EiA as the game system, and about all manner of things. Basically, this project is lucky to be alive today.

When first started, it was to be designed by Frank [?] (sorry, can't remember last name) who was also hired to do a couple things for our "beloved" Talonsoft. Well, when TS got word he was doing this "novel" Napoleonic Wars game for Matrix, they issued their legal death squad orders to put an end to it, which they did. Thank your fine fellows at that former company (and wonder why it's a "former company").

Essentially, EiA is a credible system -- not the ultimate in my mind; never was -- that has a following and perhaps can result in some excellent gameplay with the right kind of development. It's hard to get the "EiA license" and then do things like redo the map. Would that even be contractually possible? I mean, to do the "inland port" thing with Antwerp, you'd really need to redraw the areas in the low countries, wouldn't you? Or else throw out Brussels and just make the main city in that area "Antwerp" and make it a port.

Someone has said "this is wrong", but has anyone suggested a reasonable solution to redoing the areas involved? And adding rules for this "inland port"? I'm a little confused by all this other than someone saying "this isn't how it should be"...

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by pasternakski
This appears to be a port of a game that threatens neither to attract a new audience nor to satisfy the old.

This is also the impression I am getting. That this game will be a simple half breed of sorts that no one is really attracted to.

ps. This statement is not meant to be taken outside of the context.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by ryta1203
This is also the impression I am getting. That this game will be a simple half breed of sorts that no one is really attracted to.

ps. This statement is not meant to be taken outside of the context.

Oh. So we're supposed to ignore your horrid anti-somebody-or-other insult of multi-genetic (you like that term, kemo sabe?) peoples?

For me, give me liberty or give me ... I mean, I plan to sit back, shut up, and await the outcome, however sad it may be...

[Pippin]

When first started, it was to be designed by Frank [?] (sorry, can't remember last name) who was also hired to do a couple things for our "beloved" Talonsoft. Well, when TS got word he was doing this "novel" Napoleonic Wars game for Matrix, they issued their legal death squad orders to put an end to it, which they did. Thank your fine fellows at that former company (and wonder why it's a "former company").

Capitaine, here is an old news clipping I have kept for a while. I imagine you will want to refresh on it. I myself, have not worked with Talonsoft, so can't argue any side as there are often two stories.


Matrix Games (http://www.matrixgames.com) has been developing Frank Hunter's Napoleonic strategic wargame over the last few months, hoping to release it sometime this Winter. Matrix Games was recently informed by Jim Rose of Talonsoft that Talonsoft has an open contract with Mr. Hunter for a strategic Napoleonic game. We have tried to resolve this issue with Talonsoft but have not been able to do so. After reviewing the contract with Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hunter and Matrix Games have decided to cancel Wars of Napoleon 1805 - 1815. Mr. Hunter and Matrix Games currently have other games in development and we will be looking at our options in those areas.


P.S. I forget now which news site I got this from to be honest...

[HordesOfSerbs]

If the person in charge thinks that this game design should start with mechanics, then spread graphics on at the end like peanut butter on bread, I am more worried now than previously. Much of the "heart and soul" of a period piece like this is how it presents itself, and I think that the mechanical design should be directly affected by the desired "look" and "feel" of the game.

That's bollocks. The game mechanism is what makes EiA truly grand and they should be spending every minute they've got at getting it right. Who gives a toss about stupid little soldiers in fancy uniforms?! Just glue whatever's there from EU to impress the simple.

I actually have quite a contrary stand to all that gloss. Because we don't have the monitors the size of the EiA board, all that ornamental crap just crowds the view. It's somewhat like those BattleChess games for people who don't really get what's chess really about, but they sure like when the queen slaughters the pawns in awesome animation.

Instead of phoney "look" and "feel" we should really care how computer interface enhances the game, like presenting the tactical side (choosing the chits and resolving the battle), visualising the control of the land by shading it etc; and also how it can be used to cut playing time, by doing the bookkeeping and bringing the players interaction through the flow of game turn.

That's the stuff I like. I don't even care about AI, because to program a good AI which would match us diehards would take ages and requires *time*. I'm not even sure majority of people here realise what a huge work it is just to code the rules and get the game flow going, catering for all the outcomes & exceptions. We have quite a good detail there!... I bet poor Marshall gets piles of bug lists right now.

I'm happy chappy if I have EiA to play over TCP/IP - or even better, a workable PBEM option to do it on my leisure with friends. Everything else is a bonus.

[YohanTM2]

HordesOfSerbs, yes, exactly.

[Norden_slith]

Regarding the ports, I think it a bad idea to start changing things. There are many more ommissions on this map. Hamburg is many kilometers down the Elbe, Lübeck is not part of Mecklenburg - but lies north of Hamburg in the same area. London isn't exactly coastal either...
The list is probably very long...

Norden