First impressions

[borner]

I am long time EiA player, and am looking for some opinions/comments on the game to this point. How does it play compaired to the tabletop version? How much do the "first edition" bugs interfear with the game, ect. I have not yet bought the game, but will be doing so soon, and wanted some other players input. thanks!

[Jimmer]

I think it fares well against the boardgame. I'm a veteran of five complete campaigns of the board version.
 
There are pluses and minuses to the computer game. The PBEM emphasis takes away a great deal of the strategizing and tactical use of turn elements. For instance, you don't do diplomacy one step at a time. You have to think them all through at the beginning, and they're all organized and adjudicated at once. In the board game, I could decide whether to declare war to defend a minor based upon who else had declared on other minors around the map. France could conceivably find herself at war with both Prussia and Austria, having declared the wars herself. Frankly, I never commit to defending a minor, waiting instead until the next turn.
 
However, the computer version also has some big plusses. They've changed the corps strengths of several nations' corps, and all the changes make sense to me. Also, the map is an order of magnitude better than the paper one was. The smaller minor nations means MORE minor nations. Lots of action can occur before any two majors really have to go to war.
 
I like most of the naval changes as well.
 
But, a bigger plus is that the computer tracks everything. No storing counters on cards to keep track of all that junk.
 
The biggest plus, by far, though, is that it can be played over a distance. The original game required 7 dedicated players committing a night a week (or, whatever) for a whole year. It was really hard to throw together a game.
 
I miss the ability we had, though, to know the full strength of the enemy. You could calculate how many manpower the enemy had attained over time, which would tell you the maximum strength possible. Now, you have to guess.
 
So, all in all, I like it.

[pzgndr]

For instance, you don't do diplomacy one step at a time. You have to think them all through at the beginning, and they're all organized and adjudicated at once. In the board game, I could decide whether to declare war to defend a minor based upon who else had declared on other minors around the map. France could conceivably find herself at war with both Prussia and Austria, having declared the wars herself. Frankly, I never commit to defending a minor, waiting instead until the next turn.

This may be different than the board game interaction, but is it necessarily a negative? In many ways this is probably more realistic, considering the time delays for getting information during the period and dispatching diplomatic teams. It's not like the monarchs of the period had instantaneous intel to know exactly what everyone else was doing everywhere on the continent. So players now have to issue standing orders where they feel strongly about something, or be cautious and wait until the next turn to react. Seems like a plus.

[AresMars]

Though I played the boardgame for years and loved the immediate intelligence, I have to agree with Pzgndr.
 
What I am not finding as interesting is the lack of immediate notification when certain important events occur (like Prussia and Austria going to war with my France) and the such.....
 
Over time, I am sure that these will be corrected but sometimes the game holds some uncomfortable (IMHO)&nbsp;surprises!&nbsp; <GRIN>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

This may be different than the board game interaction, but is it necessarily a negative? In many ways this is probably more realistic, considering the time delays for getting information during the period and dispatching diplomatic teams. It's not like the monarchs of the period had instantaneous intel to know exactly what everyone else was doing everywhere on the continent. So players now have to issue standing orders where they feel strongly about something, or be cautious and wait until the next turn to react. Seems like a plus.

It's a negative because it takes away a capability from the previous game. Whether more realistic, I don't know. But, the opening poster asked for a comparison of games.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

What I am not finding as interesting is the lack of immediate notification when certain important events occur (like Prussia and Austria going to war with my France) and the such.....

Over time, I am sure that these will be corrected but sometimes the game holds some uncomfortable (IMHO) surprises!  <GRIN>

A correction for this is in the first patch.

[AresMars]

borner,
&nbsp;
IMHO, You cannot compare the orginal game and the PC game on an equal level.&nbsp; [:-]
&nbsp;
The boardgame was a instant classic. Very Playable. Very Enjoyable. Well Balanced. Loved EVEN! [;)]
&nbsp;
The PC game is a mixed compination of EiA, EiH and some programming realities that deviate greatly from the orginal game and its strenghts.
&nbsp;
If you love EiA (or EiH) stick with the boardgame _and/or_ use PBEM Cyberboard.
&nbsp;
If you cannot find the time or players to play the boardgame, then the Computer game gives you an oppty to play against a very weak AI, or PBEM against live humans again (EIANW and Matrix HAS provided a player community)&nbsp;with less hassles.&nbsp; For that reason, I bought it.
&nbsp;
Jimmer,
&nbsp;
I agree with your comment also, however, when have you ever seen a online forum thread stick purely to the original subject?&nbsp; [&:]
&nbsp;
Your comment also failed to address the original thread reason&nbsp;and just corrected someone else.....You too are guilty!&nbsp; <grin>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Jimmer]

Yeah, but he asked me a question. I had to answer, right?

[Grognot]

It's pretty decent.&nbsp; The UI could use some work (there's neither tool tips nor a proper description in the manual, so some things are decidedly non-obvious -- like how you can preselect chit selection for corps or convert c/g to i).

Some of the AI bugs/misbehaviors are fairly significant -- notably, that AI fleets will never break blockades (which means that even Spain should probably be played by a human, in addition to the probably more obvious and preferred GB/FR), the passivity of Russia and Turkey, and the tendency for leaders to be sent with too few troops and getting themselves captured.&nbsp; These will probably be worked on over time.&nbsp; Presently, single-player might be good for familiarizing yourself with the UI/mechanics and the rules deviations, but not for testing interesting strategies that you intend to use against humans.

The multinational naval combat issues are, apparently, already worked over for 1.01 (which is another reason that it's going to be preferable to have Spain played by a human).

The PBEM exchange involves a lot of file transfer (players generate files which get sent to all other players, not just the next one).&nbsp;&nbsp; Still, given the likely length of a game, PBEM is useful to have (although the ability to start as hotseat or TCP/IP and then switch to PBEM might also be good).