What's the big deal?

[JudgeDredd]

Are the people that are excited about this because they played the boardgame?

What is the deal with it? What does it offer over, say, Paradox Europa Universalis III?

Always interested in new titles...especially strategic [:D]

[JudgeDredd]

Must be a trade secret with 32 views and no replies.....or am I not allowed in your clan? [:D]

[Tjalfe]

Ok Judge. I´ll try to fill you in [:)]
 
For my part I look forward to this game because the board game was fantastic.
 
I had a blast with 7-8 other guys spending a sunday over the table cajoling someone to join my side, arguing rules and appealing for the dice gods to do me just one last favour... 
 
Nothing of this will off course be present in the computer version. But i expect this release to have the same flavour. Especially when i join a PBEM game with someone. I could imagine my self making a call to someone i dont really know, on the other side of the globe, just to do some political manouvering.
 
The game is perfectly balanced, the 7 MP´s have their own distinct character, many strategies can prevail, the personalities of players must be read to figure out their game and counter it .... and much more.
 
Feel free to ask if something is not clear.
 
Cheers

[timothy_stone]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Must be a trade secret with 32 views and no replies.....or am I not allowed in your clan? [:D]

it is a remarkably simple game in the actual tactics, the real beauty of it is in the way the political system makes for an elegant system where the game is actually not one by the pieces on the board so much as the ability of the players to talk each other into wild schemes, alliances, mutual wars, peace - the flexibility of the game is amazing.

And the way it so simply and yet so absolutely captures the excitement of the battles (chit picks can cause heart attacks), the naval battles (Rule BRITTANIA!!), surrenders/betrayals....

the way it captures so many flavors of the time (Send in the GUARD!).

I used to love 3rd reich (and still do) and many other games, but none comes close in the absolute replayability of EiA (the 1792 campaign is even more beautiful than the normal 1803 campaign, because there is no 400-pound gorilla (1803 france) on the board, so it is even more flexible and interesting)

it is, simply, a beautiful and exciting game - simple enough to enjoy the first time out, subtle enough to enjoy the 100th time through

[SkyElf]

Just a quick message, have to get to bed.  Me and my friends had many great times playing Empire In Arms, and World In Flames!  Spent hundreds of hours playing the games on our regular gaming night.  If it lives up to the original game it sould be a great game!

[fvianello]

I can only say that EiA has the strange ability to convey the feeling you're really sitting on one of the 7 nations' throne.
First and foremost you have to take the real, key strategic decisions that will shape your future in the game....and once you've chosen there's no easy way back, you must hope you got it right or pay the consequences for 1-2 years of game time.

And the fun is not over after your main army has been cut to pieces by the Orc....it's just starting! You have to find a way to keep him at bay while you're rebuilding it, forge new alliances and maybe get some points backstabbing a minor or an ex-allied...

Consider this: I played the boardgame only a couple of times more than 10 years ago, but I still remember those games very well. And I'm going to buy the computer version as soon as it gets out.

[Cossaky]

As kids, EiA was the first war game that forced us to play and think both strategically and politically in equal measure.  You can really feel the restraint of 19th century politics and norms of acceptable international behavior. 

I remember thinking, "why do I have to declare war?  why can't my Corps just launch a snap surprise attack?" 

The game also taught some important - and painful - lessons about logisitics and the need to plan a careful campaign.

But I have to agree with the previous posts... EiA really captures the power of personal politics and diplomacy, in a way few other games have.  I can't wait for the game to come out so I may reassemble my old foes for Le Grande Campaign!

[Sti]

So, if I understand you guys correctly, this game is more or less pointless to play solo since the most enjoyable part seems to be the politics and diplomacy and I suppose the AI isn't any better in these areas than in other games - meaning abysmal. Right? Wrong?

[Erik Rutins]

Sti,

The game also supports multi-player PBEM for up to seven players. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

[Sti]

Yes, I'm aware of that... but I don't play PBEM (or multiplayer in general), hence my question about the AI. Now, even though you didn't directly answer that question, I think it's safe to assume from your reply that my assessment of the AI is correct and I will skip this game. Which is a shame because it looks really nice. Oh, well.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Sti
Yes, I'm aware of that... but I don't play PBEM (or multiplayer in general), hence my question about the AI. Now, even though you didn't directly answer that question, I think it's safe to assume from your reply that my assessment of the AI is correct and I will skip this game. Which is a shame because it looks really nice. Oh, well.

I wasn't actually trying to comment on the AI, but in terms of getting the same sense of diplomacy and negotiation that you'd get at the tabletop, you need other human players, which is what the PBEM mode is for. I think the AI will put up a competitive game to learn EIA with (especially on Hard mode) but I've yet to find an AI that can really negotiate like a human. I'll let testers and other players chime in further.

Regards,

- Erik

[Jimmer]

This all refers to the boardgame version, because I haven't got the computer version yet (but, I WILL, and shortly!)
 
I refer to this game as "the granddaddy of all campaign boardgames". For one, it's old. But, also because it takes an immense amount of time to play (on a board): 200+ hours. And yet, even though it's a very lengthy game, players are seldom "out of it". It's also a game that is extremely well-balanced. In fact, it plays best with all seven major powers held by seven different players. All seven have a precisely equal chance of winning, because one's power is chosen based on what one is willing to pay (in victory points) to play that power.
 
Further, while very rare, it is theoretically possible for all seven players to win the game (according to the original rules, anyhow). This is one of the reasons nobody is ever really "dead".
 
When I played the game, each time I would buy a book on the historical nation covering the era in question (except the first time, when I hadn't thought of it). The time I played Turkey, I tried my hardest to think like Suileman and act as the nation of the period would have acted. I wound up winning the game by a huge margin, and I credit it to "playing historically". Same thing happened when I played Russia and Britain, although the margin of victory was smaller (5 people won in the Britain game). I can't think of any other balanced game that allows one to "play historically" like that and still have a chance of winning. Usually, there are stupid mistakes that the leaders of a nation made, and, if one wants to win the boardgame variant, one has to "change history".
 
I'm so tickled that this game is available on computers now. I'm going to ask them if they have volume licensing plans.
 
I can't speak to whether the AI is any good or not. But, I would pay nearly any amount of money for the networked version, even if it didn't have an AI, simply as a way to play the game without having to take over one's basement for a year.

[donkuchi19]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Are the people that are excited about this because they played the boardgame?

What is the deal with it? What does it offer over, say, Paradox Europa Universalis III?

Always interested in new titles...especially strategic [:D]

Dredd,

I played the boardgame from junior high school unitl last year when I started beta testing. I played Europa Universalis I and II as a stop gap computer version of EIA before that. The thing that is great about EIA -vs- EU is that the economy is much easier to handle. It is also turn based so you don't have to worry about what the computer is doing while you are planning your moves. To make territorial gains in EIA, you must win the wars and keep them as a peace condition unlike just conquering them in EU. Negotiations take more of a forefront in EIA than in EU. I enjoy both games, but I prefer EIA.

[zenmaster]

I love the Combat system in EIA.
 
In many historical battles the smaller force has destroyed the larger force due on the field tactics/strategies.
This is also very possible in EIA and the way it is setup, the Computer could be a good foe.
 
Each side has multiple ways to deploy their forces and each method has advantages and disadvantages.
With an overwhelming force, will you be conservative and try to ensure a victory?
Will you take a risk and try to annhilate the opponent?
 
With your small force, will you try and score an surprise victory with a daring move?
Dig in and try to inflict as many losses as possible since you will almost certainly lose anyway?
Will you try to slip away in the dark of night and hope you sustain no losses but risk being over-run by calvary if the retreat is detected?
 
Legendary Figures are born and torn down with such decisions.
 

[Zap]

I never owned or played the game. But thanks to Judge for asking the question.
Mostly, thanks to all the responders. You gave what to me, seems, indepth answers. You conveyed, very convincingly the passion and excitment you experienced in your game play. Your comments have been worth the price of admission = I have become more interested in becoming a purchaser of the game.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: zenmaster

I love the Combat system in EIA.

In many historical battles the smaller force has destroyed the larger force due on the field tactics/strategies.
This is also very possible in EIA and the way it is setup, the Computer could be a good foe.

Each side has multiple ways to deploy their forces and each method has advantages and disadvantages.
With an overwhelming force, will you be conservative and try to ensure a victory?
Will you take a risk and try to annhilate the opponent?

With your small force, will you try and score an surprise victory with a daring move?
Dig in and try to inflict as many losses as possible since you will almost certainly lose anyway?
Will you try to slip away in the dark of night and hope you sustain no losses but risk being over-run by calvary if the retreat is detected?

Legendary Figures are born and torn down with such decisions.

That's what sold me...[&o]...and the option to relive one of history's most spectacular eras while playing as Prussia[8D]. If as Erik stated the AI will put up a competitive fight i will be enjoying it many, many hours.

[mikul82]

ORIGINAL: donkuchi

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Are the people that are excited about this because they played the boardgame?

What is the deal with it? What does it offer over, say, Paradox Europa Universalis III?

Always interested in new titles...especially strategic [:D]

Dredd,

I played the boardgame from junior high school unitl last year when I started beta testing. I played Europa Universalis I and II as a stop gap computer version of EIA before that. The thing that is great about EIA -vs- EU is that the economy is much easier to handle. It is also turn based so you don't have to worry about what the computer is doing while you are planning your moves. To make territorial gains in EIA, you must win the wars and keep them as a peace condition unlike just conquering them in EU. Negotiations take more of a forefront in EIA than in EU. I enjoy both games, but I prefer EIA.

Actually, in Europa Universalis (well 2 at least), you also had to negotiate for captured territory as a peace condition- unless you conquered the whole country that you were attacking (and thus could "force annex" it, usually destroying your ruler's reputation in the process), being able to beat them badly enough to actually keep all of the territory you'd taken was a pretty rare occurence.

I'm also interested in this one but want to hear more about the single player game, 7 player PBEM just doesn't interest me- I don't have the patience to wait that long for my next turn.[:(]

[Mynok]

Honestly, having played the board game for many years, it is the diplomatic intrigue and interaction that really make this game. From what I've gathered so far, they've done PBEM right and the game should move along nicely.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I never owned or played the game. But thanks to Judge for asking the question.
Mostly, thanks to all the responders. You gave what to me, seems, indepth answers. You conveyed, very convincingly the passion and excitment you experienced in your game play. Your comments have been worth the price of admission = I have become more interested in becoming a purchaser of the game.

The game has been out for some time now. My question is:All the great plugs for the boardgame above, Well, is it what you were hoping for?

[DodgyDave]

its almost as i hoped, still some stuff i would like fixed, dont mind the few things from EIH that got added, but where is the rest of the kingdoms? turn sheets instead of info spread out, the status card which is better as it tells you properly with just a view, what victory points you stand to gain and how many points you will fall or raise based on the location and quite a few other things from just the basic boardgame and then advanced fleet combat, so you pick chits in naval, while england rule the sea, you will actually have more ships surviving a battle normally and not to forget the campaign 1792 with different setups

but first, fix bugs with first patch