I havent played Empires in Arms before, and I'm curious about whether or not it is highly historical, or one of those games where anything can happen.
I was reading different strategies people have in the board game, and it seems like different countries will do things to advance their position in game turns that weren't neccessarily actions these countries would have taken historically.
Also I was wondering if the game is balanced so each country has an equal chance of winning, or if France is the most powerful country and they can only be defeated by a coalition of opposing countries.
Newbie Question
Moderator: MOD_EIA
Newbie Question
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Good Question
The way that I see it, the game can be played any way that the players want. France doesn't have to be ganged up on all of the time.
Players can play countries like they acted historically, but that is a restriction, that will exist beyond the game. (Historically speaking, Russia even declared war on England sometime before 1812, so not every country was hell bent on destroying France --all of the time as some "historians" like to over-generalize.)
YET, to just re-live history with it's foregone cconclusion is IMO boring. I see no need for anyone to ever desire to play France in such a situation.
The game has to allow the player great amounts of freedom to even include the possibility for France (or any nation for that matter) to win ---or it won't be much of a game.
It really does appear to be a great game. It will be one which you can play it according to the classic "Empire in Arms" or it will be one which you can play it with a lot of advanced rules. It is up to you. Either way, it willl be worth it's money.
If you like the period, I say don't hesitate. Order it immediately when it is available and then connect with other players. (I bet Matrix will sponsor some sort of opponent matching.)
Players can play countries like they acted historically, but that is a restriction, that will exist beyond the game. (Historically speaking, Russia even declared war on England sometime before 1812, so not every country was hell bent on destroying France --all of the time as some "historians" like to over-generalize.)
YET, to just re-live history with it's foregone cconclusion is IMO boring. I see no need for anyone to ever desire to play France in such a situation.
The game has to allow the player great amounts of freedom to even include the possibility for France (or any nation for that matter) to win ---or it won't be much of a game.
It really does appear to be a great game. It will be one which you can play it according to the classic "Empire in Arms" or it will be one which you can play it with a lot of advanced rules. It is up to you. Either way, it willl be worth it's money.
If you like the period, I say don't hesitate. Order it immediately when it is available and then connect with other players. (I bet Matrix will sponsor some sort of opponent matching.)
Vive l'Empereur!
-
Alex Gilbert
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 9:28 am
- Location: New York City
Well, it is free form in that there are no restrictions on which countries you can delcare war on, and which you are allied to. That being said, I think that the game does a nice job mimicking the realities of the time that forced the alliances to develop the way they did. Britain usually winds up handing out the money to its friends, which makes Austria and Russia in particular happy. So on the whole, I think it does a pretty nice job in the historical accuracy category.
France is clearly the most powerful single country (as would be necessary in any historically accurate game), but to win, each country has to collect a number of victory points proportional to its starting strength. I have seen, I think, every country but Turkey win the game at one point or another. The other advantage to this is that because it needs so many victory points, France has to remain aggressive (as it did under Napoleon) to have a chance at winning.
France is clearly the most powerful single country (as would be necessary in any historically accurate game), but to win, each country has to collect a number of victory points proportional to its starting strength. I have seen, I think, every country but Turkey win the game at one point or another. The other advantage to this is that because it needs so many victory points, France has to remain aggressive (as it did under Napoleon) to have a chance at winning.
Variable Victory Conditions
What I would really like to see is variable victory conditions that are specific for each country.
Each country should have a couple of different "choices" on how to win the game, and only THEY know it.
That would really make it intersting.
We started a variant of Empire in Arms that way, and it was real interesting. I am not sure where my buddy who ran the game got the differing victory conditions, but it was real interesting.
Each country should have a couple of different "choices" on how to win the game, and only THEY know it.
That would really make it intersting.
We started a variant of Empire in Arms that way, and it was real interesting. I am not sure where my buddy who ran the game got the differing victory conditions, but it was real interesting.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
I'm going to get it because it's Napoleonic and it is made by Matrix. Matrix hasnt let me down yet.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Originally posted by Snigbert
I'm going to get it because it's Napoleonic and it is made by Matrix. Matrix hasnt let me down yet.
Agreed Snigbert. Additionally, I am also an owner of the original game that it will be based on and enjoyed that game.
But my concern is that if they try too hard to replicate EiA, and do not take advantage of a new medium (computer game vs board game) and "improve" the game to make it better in the new medium, that it will marginalize thier efforts.
I don't want a "cookie cutter" version of EiA, but something that takes its strong aspects(politics and economics) and marries it will some updates to the weaker parts of the game (leadership effects and tactical combat). And something that will be easy to play in PBEM or TCP/IP (yes, the dreaded "simulataneous movement":eek:
)."Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
-
Hoplosternum
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:39 pm
- Location: Romford, England
Pasternakski this was exactly my initial response. I liked EiA but think it has many flaws and was rather hoping for a more in depth game. What about a more complex combat model with corps commanders etc. or weekly or bi- weekly turns or experience levels for troops? I cannot see any likelihood of these things nowWhen this game design was first announced, I was looking forward to its release. When it was turned into an EiA project, I lost all interest.
It is likely to be EiA with a few options.Still I agree with Snigbert too - it's from Matrix and it's a strategic scale Napoleonic game - how bad can that be
I am looking forward to it The problem with doing a version of EiA in my mind is that the computer will not easily be able to recreate the best bits of EiA - the diplomacy with up to six others and the plots and shifting alliances this creates. But will create the rather restrictive and simplistic boardgame feel of combat and economy. Computers can easily improve on the later, but an advanced and believable diplomatic model? It's beyond any company let alone a small one like Matrix I think.
Allies vs Belphegor Jul 43 2.5:2.5 in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
Originally posted by Hoplosternum
Pasternakski this was exactly my initial response. I liked EiA but think it has many flaws and was rather hoping for a more in depth game. What about a more complex combat model with corps commanders etc. or weekly or bi- weekly turns or experience levels for troops? I cannot see any likelihood of these things now
[snip]
That is precisely what I was aiming at, that there is so much more potential with a computer game than with the board game (particularly in depth of the combat and economics), and the limiting aspects of EIA will impede a more robust game design.
Or at best, a majority of the programming effort will be to simply replicate EiA as oppossed to an improved game.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
-
Hoplosternum
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:39 pm
- Location: Romford, England
Better than the original?
Ironically, the additional chrome that you are seeking is just the sort of thing that I'd hate to see slapped in.
The game was a blend of simulation and playability. Many of the rules were simplified to make the game playable at the scale.
There *could* have been detailled command and control rules, better supply rules, economic choices, etc, but to include them would have bogged the game down in minutae, like Europa Universalis.
EiA is a *STRATEGIC* game. The scale is grand, as is the scope and timeline. It plays well like that.
If you want to decide whether Donegal produces wheat or fish, Play EU.
The game was a blend of simulation and playability. Many of the rules were simplified to make the game playable at the scale.
There *could* have been detailled command and control rules, better supply rules, economic choices, etc, but to include them would have bogged the game down in minutae, like Europa Universalis.
EiA is a *STRATEGIC* game. The scale is grand, as is the scope and timeline. It plays well like that.
If you want to decide whether Donegal produces wheat or fish, Play EU.
Re: Better than the original?
Originally posted by Yorlum
Ironically, the additional chrome that you are seeking is just the sort of thing that I'd hate to see slapped in.
The game was a blend of simulation and playability. Many of the rules were simplified to make the game playable at the scale.
There *could* have been detailled command and control rules, better supply rules, economic choices, etc, but to include them would have bogged the game down in minutae, like Europa Universalis.
EiA is a *STRATEGIC* game. The scale is grand, as is the scope and timeline. It plays well like that.
If you want to decide whether Donegal produces wheat or fish, Play EU.
EU2 is nice, but real time ain't my bag, especially since I am really looking forward to the multiplayer aspect of this game. And there is nothing on the market that is PBEM capable (Age of Empires killed whatever desire I had to play realtime multiplayer games)
And I would not call what I want "chrome", but a little more substance. And there can be a little more detail to give a better feel for the leadership aspects (Hey, I want to see Marshall Lannes in the game!).
And with a computer format, details can be handled much easier than with the stubby pencil in the boardgame version.
I just think a simple translation is an opportunity lost to create an even better game.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Re: Re: Better than the original?
Originally posted by denisonh
EU2 is nice, but real time ain't my bag, especially since I am really looking forward to the multiplayer aspect of this game. And there is nothing on the market that is PBEM capable (Age of Empires killed whatever desire I had to play realtime multiplayer games)
And I would not call what I want "chrome", but a little more substance. And there can be a little more detail to give a better feel for the leadership aspects (Hey, I want to see Marshall Lannes in the game!).
And with a computer format, details can be handled much easier than with the stubby pencil in the boardgame version.
I just think a simple translation is an opportunity lost to create an even better game.
I'd like to chime in here and simply say that those are great comments denisonh. You aren't alone.
Vive l'Empereur!
-
Butcher White
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:23 pm
Well, I have to say I disagree. Adding insufficiently developed home rules is a virtual gurantee of ending up with a dud.
These choices were made in the original design (it started out at divisional level - what a nightmare!) for good reasons. I have played some of the variants suggested here and find them unsatisfactory 'as is' without exception.
I for one would hate to see something that is not Empires in Arms marketed as Empires in Arms.
In any case, it is a moot issue. It is a business proposition for Matrix and one of the reasons there is a summer 03 release date is because the design work and balancing is done.
Cheers
These choices were made in the original design (it started out at divisional level - what a nightmare!) for good reasons. I have played some of the variants suggested here and find them unsatisfactory 'as is' without exception.
I for one would hate to see something that is not Empires in Arms marketed as Empires in Arms.
In any case, it is a moot issue. It is a business proposition for Matrix and one of the reasons there is a summer 03 release date is because the design work and balancing is done.
Cheers
Shelly
-
Chris Kowalchuk
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 9:47 am
To answer the question
Getting back to the original question:
EiA has a strong historical flavour, and the options available to the player are quite plausible in the historical context, but no, the game is not a(n) historical simulation. One of the aspects I love about his game is that the player is in complete control of his nation, in terms of alliances, wars, how and where to fight, what to fight with (well, you are restricted to your nation's corps structure) etc.
Victory, furthermore, is abstracted, so that each nation has a reasonable chance of winning based on its beginning strength. However, good play of the game is by no means historical play. Austria and Prussia, for example, have the opportunity to cooperate far more closely than they did in reality, which can be a real pain for the French, powerful though they be. I have played several games where the Germans demolished France by 1807. The real Napoleon had a tremendous advantage in that his enemies disliked each other almost as much as they disliked him.
I consider EiA to be one of the most balanced and interesting grand-level strategic games I have ever played (or heard of). It is not so much a Napoleonic war-game, as a grand strategy game that has the Napoleonic period as its theme. As such, it works beautifully. As a Napoleonic simulation, it has all sorts of faults (but how can you fault something for not being what it never claimed to be?). My advice to those who want more technical and historical accuracy is to play a game such as "Napoleon's Battles", and they can push those little divisional counters around to their heart's content!
CLK
EiA has a strong historical flavour, and the options available to the player are quite plausible in the historical context, but no, the game is not a(n) historical simulation. One of the aspects I love about his game is that the player is in complete control of his nation, in terms of alliances, wars, how and where to fight, what to fight with (well, you are restricted to your nation's corps structure) etc.
Victory, furthermore, is abstracted, so that each nation has a reasonable chance of winning based on its beginning strength. However, good play of the game is by no means historical play. Austria and Prussia, for example, have the opportunity to cooperate far more closely than they did in reality, which can be a real pain for the French, powerful though they be. I have played several games where the Germans demolished France by 1807. The real Napoleon had a tremendous advantage in that his enemies disliked each other almost as much as they disliked him.
I consider EiA to be one of the most balanced and interesting grand-level strategic games I have ever played (or heard of). It is not so much a Napoleonic war-game, as a grand strategy game that has the Napoleonic period as its theme. As such, it works beautifully. As a Napoleonic simulation, it has all sorts of faults (but how can you fault something for not being what it never claimed to be?). My advice to those who want more technical and historical accuracy is to play a game such as "Napoleon's Battles", and they can push those little divisional counters around to their heart's content!
CLK
-
Butcher White
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:23 pm
Yes, good point 
The game is not totally historical. Players are offered similar choices to their historical counterparts but are not bound to make the same choice.
Most of the game balance comes from the VP bidding system used to allocate countries. You can play France and beat a bunch of people up, but you need to bid a shedload of Victory Points (which you must earn back in addition to the base amount).
Where there are problems with this is usually because players do not understand the implications and bid as low as possible. Or they are not confident in their ability. Getting Spain for 3 is no bonus if someone gets France for 20.
The system works best when a number of good players compete vigorously for the larger powers. I played in a circle of players with a standout in terms of ability, yet it was still important to make sure he did not get France too easily.
I am not sure how the developers will implement this. Having the AI bid high for France and then run it poorly (in comparison to a human player) makes things very easy for Austria or Prussia. However, like all 7 player diplomacy games it can be hard to stay in front for long.
Cheers
The game is not totally historical. Players are offered similar choices to their historical counterparts but are not bound to make the same choice.
Most of the game balance comes from the VP bidding system used to allocate countries. You can play France and beat a bunch of people up, but you need to bid a shedload of Victory Points (which you must earn back in addition to the base amount).
Where there are problems with this is usually because players do not understand the implications and bid as low as possible. Or they are not confident in their ability. Getting Spain for 3 is no bonus if someone gets France for 20.
The system works best when a number of good players compete vigorously for the larger powers. I played in a circle of players with a standout in terms of ability, yet it was still important to make sure he did not get France too easily.
I am not sure how the developers will implement this. Having the AI bid high for France and then run it poorly (in comparison to a human player) makes things very easy for Austria or Prussia. However, like all 7 player diplomacy games it can be hard to stay in front for long
.Cheers
Shelly
What I was hoping for was more of a Napoleonic Historical Grand Strategy Game, rather than a Grand Strategy game which happens to be set in the Napoleonic period. I hope there will be options available to force players to make historical decisions. When I see these AARs where Turkey is attacking Tunisia and Spain is attacking Portugal, for example, it seems too weird to me.
However, like I said, I will buy the game either way. I'm just a stickler for historical accuracy.
However, like I said, I will buy the game either way. I'm just a stickler for historical accuracy.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Good question
Originally posted by Snigbert
What I was hoping for was more of a Napoleonic Historical Grand Strategy Game, rather than a Grand Strategy game which happens to be set in the Napoleonic period.....
Ah, the double edged sword cuts yet again. IMO, that is the danger of any wargame. If game designer restricts the player to only what happened in history, then you no longer have a game and you just replay history. Who would want a forgone conclusion before they start? Who would play the French if they are going to lose before they even start? It would be a boring experience indeed.
Where do the designers draw the line?
It has to be open ended and unrestrictive to work, IMO.
Yet, there is nothing keeping you from obtaining a gentleman's agreement with your opponents about what type of game you want to have. The research and work is up to you to have all ironed out before you play. Forget something and you'll only have yourself to blame. Also, choose wisely your opponents and the sorts of things that you don't want to see most likely won't be in your experience.
I cannot and I will not accept that the onus is on the game designer. They have to design something that appeals to a wide range of folks or they just won't be able to feed their families -- and that is the bottom line, I believe. It is especially so if you believe that our hobby is so relatively small.
Vive l'Empereur!