BUg and Suggestions (a start)

[Jestre]

ORIGINAL: Murat

As I pointed out before the information was very inaccurate. Even today we can only guess at how many troops were in the Grand Army of 1812. Casualties were often inflated for the opponent and downplayed for your side. If you want historical then you should get inaccurate reports and they should come a month or 2 after the battle. As for #2 if you cannot find the information, READ THE MANUAL (most of these questions are arising about things that are spelled out in the manual, not missing things), if you cannot find the information after that, ask here. People go out of their way to teach people this game because it is such a great one. After playing for a while and understanding it I think you will be leaning more to the 'iron' view than to the one you currently hold. If everyone knew everyone else's info then this game would degrade to fancy Diplomacy.

As has been pointed out by Nappy not everyone wants to have the same FOW that you like. It's called personal preference. You like the way it is now, nappy doesn't, neither do I. I probably will not purchase the game until a patch is made that makes the information flow more accessable and more complete. There is no reason that the game cannot offer a choice as to how much information is presented to the gamer. Then EVERYONE is happy.

[nappy]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

but it is unfair of you to say 'I didn't take the time to look at what information I was given and now bad things have happened to me because I was lazy.'

I agree with this 100% if you're going to be a lazy gamer you don't deserve any options or fixes to the fact. I also whole heartedly agree with Murat. Down with Nappy and his ideas plz.

I dont undertsand how this is about being a lazy gamer? Monadman mentioned that the AI vs AI and thrid party info should be present,and that area names may be added. This is the type of info that doesnt need a psychic hotline - things that will be pretty much common knowledge like Leaders, chits, detailed location, number of corps and possibly casualties. I will agree Historically that there was FOW but this is a game, that has a lot of ahistorical elements in it anyways. If you want historicity then I am certain the local spies, reporters/press, and political/military allies could get you better than A beats B somewhere cryptic. For example: what about " Turkey and Russia fight a big battle in the Shipka Pass between a Kutusov and Khushantz Ali; with the Russians Smashing the into the Turkish defensive cordon with high casualties". I would like to know that. Right now you cant tell if it is trivial, a skirmish, a depot fight, or a whopping bloody big epic battke. "Russia beats Turkey in Area146" just doesnt have the content or the charm of my previous description now does it. .

Also as other have mentioned naval battles need to show up as info - somewhere - even some of my own dont seem to have info (exp blockade breakouts). in EiA ship/fleet battles were very public. Ships, shipbuilding are very open activities and usually the roster of ships for most nations is mutually well known; even if the exact force compositions are not.

Naps

PS down with Ravinhood and his downisms !!

[DodgyDave]

heh, i agree, i also would like to see how battles between others went, its afterall how i remember playing the game as well, boardgame that is

game needs options, so the 7 players in the same game, can decide how they want to play it.

ohh and just to ensure its said, i would like advanced fleet rules, i prefer it with the chits option, its much more fun.

[dauphan129]

Well, I again find myself in the middle of the road. Frankly the AI doesn't seem to be able to beat me and as such I got bored with it and want to play against real people. I am still playing solo games but mostly just to Run Tactics and get better at the interface.

All bragging aside , in a PBEM with real folks as Nappy said we can Email our Allies and say "Hey Prussia, Austria here. I saw Nappy hand you your ass over there in Flanders. I was going to jump that stack, how many factors are in it and what did he pick?" Then hope for accurate info. So here is the middle ground I propose (and far down the line) Make a button in diplomacy that allows you to request battle reports from last month from allies.

Just an idea.

Also, for the record, in our Pen and Paper games some folks would want their battles secret other would just have them in the open. It was up to the Individual [:)]

[JavaJoe]

ORIGINAL: dauphan129

Well, I again find myself in the middle of the road. Frankly the AI doesn't seem to be able to beat me and as such I got bored with it and want to play against real people. I am still playing solo games but mostly just to Run Tactics and get better at the interface.

All bragging aside , in a PBEM with real folks as Nappy said we can Email our Allies and say "Hey Prussia, Austria here. I saw Nappy hand you your ass over there in Flanders. I was going to jump that stack, how many factors are in it and what did he pick?" Then hope for accurate info. So here is the middle ground I propose (and far down the line) Make a button in diplomacy that allows you to request battle reports from last month from allies.

Just an idea.

Also, for the record, in our Pen and Paper games some folks would want their battles secret other would just have them in the open. It was up to the Individual [:)]

I find that less information about things makes me want to find out more through the people in the game. The system does give you information. Who won and an idea of the size of the battle. Even if Napoleon was involved! Details can be asked for...although the system doesn't record the battle and losses.

[DodgyDave]

i dont see much fun in that, pbem is going to be rather slow, so would prefer to see the battles, to keep the interest up! if we had kept it a secret when we had regular battles around the table, i doubt many would have played it.

so if they can add the battle info, so all can see it, then just leave it as an option, so a group can decide if they want this or not. No reason to just turn it down, because you dont want it, we dont all agree afterall

[megalomania2003]

Also, for the record, in our Pen and Paper games some folks would want their battles secret other would just have them in the open. It was up to the Individual [:)]

But part of the fun (at least for me and most of my friends) have allways been to look at - for instance - France vs. AU&PR battles. To restrict that information (or at least not to have an option to make it available) would be to reduce Spain/ Turkey/ Russia to long periods of complete boredom.

You might want an option to deny that information, but at least give me an option to make that information relatively easily available to me.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Jestre
As has been pointed out by Nappy not everyone wants to have the same FOW that you like. It's called personal preference.

I am in favor of it being an option but not a replacement.

As for specific information about a PBEM battle, trust me there is plenty of time to ask your ally what happened and if they are poor notetakers you can get the inaccurate results I was talking about "I dunno he hit me with like 100 units on an outflank and trashed me for like 40I and 6 C." [:(]

[Khornish]

I pick the withdraw chit on this whole thing.

I'd like to have options, as a player. Let me and my opponent(s) choose which options to use or not use.

[BoerWar]

I'd just like to point out that even the participants aren't getting full disclosure. I'm BR and Nelson just got attacked and lost at sea and all I know is this:

[nappy]

Yeah naval battles, as I mentioned are not giving any info at all to anyone and completely lacking in some situations like blockade resolutions.

Question: Under EIA wasnt there an option for a pursuit of the phasing fleet to blockade the defeated enemy to the port of retreat - this doesnt seem to be in the game.   

Naps

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: Micke II

I completly agree with Nappy. The same issue concerning lack of information or improvement of the screens for the existing information has also been adressed in another thread with the same arguments.

See: tm.asp?m=1645850


What I am expecting from this game is
1/ historicity:
when somebody is saying than "only the 2 players must know the results of a battle" it's ridiculous. Spys, diplomats, observers, common people talking to each others, travellers was able between 1805 and 1815 to dispatch with accuracy news concerning big european events such as a big battle. You have just to read some historical books and documents to learn that.

Your spies are yourself (the player) asking your allies (or the allies of your allies) details about the battle. If you don't have anyone to gather informations from, too bad for you.

2/playability and fun:
I cannot agree when I read: "to find information you have to dig it out and must make an effort to find it"
It's a game and a hobby, it's not a job. If its appears I have to work hard to play this game I would change immediately for something more friendly.

That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste.

[fvianello]

I'd just like to point out that even the participants aren't getting full disclosure. I'm BR and Nelson just got attacked and lost at sea and all I know is this:

Well, THIS is a problem to deal with. GB should definitely have all the details about the Nelson's lost naval battle.

[DodgyDave]

HanBarca, where does it say in the normal boardgame rules that the battles are a secret?

the point being from some is, they dont just want a boring game, they want the option of playing it as they want, so let them suggest things they would like, its up to the programmers and owners of the game, to decide if its possible and its worth adding.

to me, it seems the best for this game, is they keep adding new options, because this is what will give more people a reason to buy the game, as they want to play the game as they once did around the table.

[nappy]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste.

HARD means difficult, as in strong opponent(s) and finding yourself on the edge of your seat trying to fight your way to a win. HARD is not tediously or monotomously trying to find information that should logically be a tad more self evident. By your definition HARD would be removing indexes and chapter divisions from non-fiction books, and saying that if you cant find the information within it easily is because that book is supposed to be a difficult topic. To each their own, some Info/UI options would be nice for some, not for others, this is the way of all software. [:)] You are right about taste, but why should anyone taste be any more predminant than anyone else's - as many of us agree - it world be workable as OPTIONs so we can enjoy the game as we feel best represents its true spirit of teh game tp both the new player to the EiA Grognard.

Naps

[Jestre]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca



That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste.

No it isnt a matter of "HARD" it's a matter of content. Many of us, I believe most of us prefer a game the gives us more of an immersiveness in the subject matter and feel cheated if we get mostly just vague hints and incomplete data of not only minor events but also major events.

It's not too much to ask for the game to offer options for both type of players.... I am guessing that the vast majority of wargamers would choose to have more information made available. I would also guess that the current "FOW" as implemented will cause for a much shorter game life for most purchasers of the game. As for myself I have no inclination to buy the game until it does offer an option for more disclosure and I would imagine that I am not alone.

[Thresh]

so you insist on a 'god's eye view' and knowledge of all the wargames you play. interesting...

todd

ORIGINAL: Jestre

ORIGINAL: HanBarca



That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste.

No it isnt a matter of "HARD" it's a matter of content. Many of us, I believe most of us prefer a game the gives us more of an immersiveness in the subject matter and feel cheated if we get mostly just vague hints and incomplete data of not only minor events but also major events.

It's not too much to ask for the game to offer options for both type of players.... I am guessing that the vast majority of wargamers would choose to have more information made available. I would also guess that the current "FOW" as implemented will cause for a much shorter game life for most purchasers of the game. As for myself I have no inclination to buy the game until it does offer an option for more disclosure and I would imagine that I am not alone.

[nappy]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

so you insist on a 'god's eye view' and knowledge of all the wargames you play. interesting...

todd

I dont think anyone is asking for a perfect God's eye view (although most PC and board games do have this anyways). I think most people are asking for more accesible info in the manner which they are used to in the FtoF version and that makes sense in the UI (summries). For example in EiA the number of corps at every point on the map was always visible so you knew when a battle was fought, commanded by whom, and specifically where - not nitty gritty details for third party battles. The big critique is the game doesnt do that well enough, it is more minimalist than the original game.

Naps

[Thresh]

depends on the settings your using, and how much attention you pay to the map. if you leave ai moves on, it's a bit easy to track the movement of other corps. vsvi usually take a few minutes after i see a big battle result to see where it occurred, and from there its pretty easy to figure out who fought whom and where, and how many corps were involved.

factors is a different matter, truth be told i am not sure the computer builds anything but militia after awhile...

todd

ORIGINAL: nappy

ORIGINAL: Thresh

so you insist on a 'god's eye view' and knowledge of all the wargames you play. interesting...

todd

I dont think anyone is asking for a perfect God's eye view (although most PC and board games do have this anyways). I think most people are asking for more accesible info in the manner which they are used to in the FtoF version and that makes sense in the UI (summries). For example in EiA the number of corps at every point on the map was always visible so you knew when a battle was fought, commanded by whom, and specifically where - not nitty gritty details for third party battles. The big critique is the game doesnt do that well enough, it is more minimalist than the original game.

Naps

[Jestre]

I find it interesting that those of us that want more detail in the presentation of game information want it as a customizable choice that would not deter those that like the game as is to have to sacrifice their preferred way of playing. On the other hand those that like the way the game as it is don't even want the option presented to those that disagree with their preference.... seems pretty selfish and petty to me....