Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options
The participating forces (counted as corps), chits picked, round fought, losses and final outcome are all listed in the game log.
The number of factors involved in the battle is not reported - I agree with this approach as during the game you cannot see how many factors are in other players' corps, so the same degree of fog of war is applied during battles. Of course, an allied player directly involved in the battle can pass you the information, and that's perfectly legal and coherent with the EiA "game style".
In land battles factors should be hidden until after chit selection is revealed. After that they should be known to all players. There is no way to keep these kind of things secret from anyone who wants to know. Moreover, the whole idea of PP accounts for nations advertising the scale of their victories....
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
[&:] Am I missing something? Im my PBEM games all I can see in the log is where the battle is and who wins/loses. Nothing about chits/losses/force composition. Where in the log is this information?
Also in the original ftf EiA everybody could see the full information on the battle after the chits selection, there should be an option for that.
ORIGINAL: HanBarca
The participating forces (counted as corps), chits picked, round fought, losses and final outcome are all listed in the game log.
The number of factors involved in the battle is not reported - I agree with this approach as during the game you cannot see how many factors are in other players' corps, so the same degree of fog of war is applied during battles. Of course, an allied player directly involved in the battle can pass you the information, and that's perfectly legal and coherent with the EiA "game style".
In land battles factors should be hidden until after chit selection is revealed. After that they should be known to all players. There is no way to keep these kind of things secret from anyone who wants to know. Moreover, the whole idea of PP accounts for nations advertising the scale of their victories....
Of course, an allied player directly involved in the battle can pass you the information, and that's perfectly legal and coherent with the EiA "game style".
With the power of the computer, the game should be able to share this info automatically. Clicking on an enemy corps could reveal last known information. But such information is perishable and players would rely on it at their own risk, since corps strengths can be rearranged during reinforcement phases and during movement if a garrison is available for exchanging factors. If implemented, maybe maintain battle information for about 3 months max?
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Here's a battle I just simulated:
[blockquote]1805, Jan Great Britain Wins Battle Of Amsterdam
1805, Jan France loses -1pp
1805, Jan Great Britain gains +1pp
1805, Jan France Breaks, Great Britain Wins!
1805, Jan France Pursuit losses: , 3 Infantry
1805, Jan Great Britain Pursuit: Class:5 Die:3 Mod:0 Net:3 Perc Loss:30
1805, Jan France Casualties , 1 Cavalry
1805, Jan Great Britain Casualties , 1 Infantry
1805, Jan R2: France Die 0, Perc 5, Mrl 0.50
1805, Jan R2: Great Britain Die 3, Perc 10, Mrl 1.40
1805, Jan France Casualties , 1 Infantry
1805, Jan Great Britain Casualties , 1 Infantry
1805, Jan R1: France Die 1, Perc 5, Mrl 0.20
1805, Jan R1: Great Britain Die 4, Perc 10, Mrl 1.00
1805, Jan Day 1 CHITS Great Britain:Assault France:Esc Counter Attack
1805, Jan France, 1 corps
1805, Jan Great Britain, 2 corps
1805, Jan BATTLE:Amsterdam Attacker:Great Britain Defender:France
1805, Jan Great Britain Attacking France at Amsterdam
[/blockquote]This is fine and dandy as part of a log file.
I THOUGHT I BOUGHT A FRIGGIN' GAME!!!!
I don't need to spend my time sifting through log files, that's part of my 50 hour a week job!
Here's a spec for Marshall:
Right click any territory.
Options
BATTLE SUMMARIES
List all the battles that occurred in that territory
User selects one of the battles
Battle summary screen pops up listing leaders, forces, strengths, chit selections, losses by round, outcome.
I understand, it's not part of the original EiA. You could write down what happened, but who has the time? Perhaps if there was a game moderator who just kept the game moving! Or maybe if you harnessed the power of your dual core 3.0GHz desktop with 500GB of space... I'm sure we could figure out a way to store this information in a database and present it to the user in an attractive fashion.
This is the 21st century. How about some 21st century bells and whistles to go with our 18th century historical simulator? Is this playable? YES. But in the same way that I could go out in my yard right now, get a bunch of rocks and re-enact the battle of gettysburg at the person level. I never said anything about how enjoyable it would be.
In land battles factors should be hidden until after chit selection is revealed. After that they should be known to all players. There is no way to keep these kind of things secret from anyone who wants to know. Moreover, the whole idea of PP accounts for nations advertising the scale of their victories....
My apologies if I misstated my case, "before the battle" started meant AFTER chit selection but BEFORE rolls. Sorry for the confusion.
Fog of War: Limits the amount of battle information that is written to the status info window for
all to see.
Which is a bit different than the 'whatsnew'.
So this is just one ridiculously named option. It should be called "Battle Reporting". Fog of war should affect information one has before a battle, not the results of the battle. While this doesn't break the game, I believe it adds a hint of frustration with regards to the playability. I'll not play with limited battle reporting again.
ORIGINAL: Tater
No set-up wins or loses the game. After about a year or two, assuming the initial set-up wasn't totally boneheaded (EX: see almost any AI-MP set-up) the value/detriment of the initial set-up is mostly gone. So assuming your opponent(s) didn't just give up after 1-2 years you haven't "beaten" any initial set-up.
Also, any initial set-up is only as good as the player using it and as the circumstances dictate...the set-up I describe isn't much good if either the Russian or Spanish decide to help the Brits...but then what French naval set-up would work in such a case.
Regardless, if something as simple as a decent set-up (i.e., set-up that actually challenges a human player) can't be managed for the AI then this game really never has a chance of being fixed from a solitaire play standpoint.
I only have an argument with your first paragraph, in one case. If/when Spain losses her fleet, she basically becomes the largest minor (like Sweden). If I'm Britain, I look for a chance to kill the Spanish fleet in one fell swoop. If I'm Spain, I fully garrison Cadiz AND usually have at least a full corps there AND have the potential to place a leader each turn. Now, I'm a bit paranoid, but you can take Portugal, Sardinia, Morocco then Algeria (if needed) without using your "real" fleet. Just enough to move corps, if needed.
If GB dows me (as SP), I start to cry foul to RU, FR and TU. Spain's fleet's existence at least gives the potential for hostile action against England if needed.
On the other hand, I have seen RU, FR, AU, PR, SP and TU (who had all of their ships destroyed or mostly destroyed by GB), take 2+ years off of fighting to just build ships... That was ugly. England was so far ahead that he had to be taken down like that. No GB trade. I don't remember what the result of that was. Game might have dissolved.
ORIGINAL: iamspamus
On the other hand, I have seen RU, FR, AU, PR, SP and TU (who had all of their ships destroyed or mostly destroyed by GB), take 2+ years off of fighting to just build ships... That was ugly. England was so far ahead that he had to be taken down like that. No GB trade. I don't remember what the result of that was. Game might have dissolved.
That's interesting, it's the same situation I am in my Love & Death PBEM game...too bad you don't remember the outcome
I know I am in the vast minority on this but technically only the fighting powers know what forces are involved (although even that interpretation is left open to debate in the original EiA) and while nothing prevents a player from telling their allies what was there, I don't. In addition, you can often turn last month's I II IV stack into the II III VI stack if you keep forces in proximity to each other.
After all the chit and chat and back and forth, the bottom line is this. The engine is not robust enough to handle all/most of the things that it needs to be able to do, unfortunately.
I think those people who were expecting to play a game against 6 AI opponents and encounter the same game play idiosyncrasies and subtleties when playing 6 other humans were setting the bar a bit high...
