June Update ... Are we there yet?

[pxreiman]

Simply cannot wait for this one. Keep up the good work. IChristie, you are setting the standard.

[Uncle Toby]

I doubt there was anything completely original in EIA except a unique combination of rules and systems. Every component of EIA pre-existed it in some form and the creators of EIA got their ideas from other sources. A computerized version of EIA would be only one more level of development in a chain of creativity of which EIA is but one link. As long as they don’t just copy it (which, as has been said you couldn’t do anyway since a computer game is by nature different from a board game) the designers are free to use the features and ideas which EIA shares with other games. EIA was in a sense assembled out of parts created by others who were either humble or obliging enough not to obstruct it’s creation, it’s sad if people who owe so much to others are too petty and grasping to allow the liberality they themselves have benefited from.

[Caranorn]

Uncle Toby, the difference is that in general, game designers borrow some ideas from other game designers. They take ideas from various designs, not just one. The moment you set out with the idea to borrow concepts from only one game, you get dangerously close to just copying that game. Which is of course illegal.

Then again, all sugestions of copying EiA seem to have come from players, not from the matrix designers.

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: Do you have any idea how and when Harry Rowland designed EiA? Personally I doubt he copied many ideas, most of that was original work. And he hasn't made quite as much from the games (WiF definitelly brought more money then EiA) as some might think. Board wargaming has not really been profitable for a while now.

[Uncle Toby]

Well let’s see my ADG copy says 1983, (that would be about 11 years after I started gaming) no doubt they were working on it a few years before that but then so were others who published about the same time. It was well into a boom time for strategy games, so long the restricted to a few sources and dominated by Avalon Hill.

More to the point lets separate the unusual elements of EIA from those (a map with area movement or modifiable CRT to resolve combat for instance) so mundane as to be regarded as ubiquitous.

The unusual elements are (or were for the time, some have since become quite common):

Attrition based on seasons, movement and terrain.

Restricted supply lines.

Diplomatic system with restricted results, binding and penalty agreements.

Delayed troop construction.

Accumulated victory points based on national prestige.

Some other elements such as the political ranking of leaders are unusual but these don’t effect the game much. These systems combined with ordinary ones make EIA the game it is.

There may be more, it’s been 10 years since I played EIA last. Also some may disagree with what elements are unusual. Plenty of room for disagreement without, I think, my point being lost.

Also it should be noted that EIA was finely balanced by handicapping and restricting the interests and interaction of the players, this is a fine attribute but it is a goal (rarely achieved) rather than an element or idea.

I can think of at least one example of an idea in a game the same or very like each of these elements in EIA which predate 1983. I invite the Groniards of the board to make their own lists by way of an instructive quiz in game history.

[denisonh]

Glad to see a strategic level game for the Napoleonic period. Been waiting a long time for this kind of game.

But by no means hurry it, as that has killed more games than satisfied customers.