Differences to board game

[gazfun]

Holy jumpin gee horseafat! We got ourselves a grown man P........ war going here

[Thresh]

Oh, I have to.

I've also seen them put out some crap.

Thresh

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Neverman,

And how much time, energy, and resources did Microsoft spend on
Windows 2000?

If the worlds dominant computer software company can put out a product like that, which after nine years in production, four major updates and fixes, yet is still prone to bugs and virus's requiring almost monthly updates, then I'm willing to give Marshall and Matrix a little more rope.

Todd

Are you honestly comparing an Operating System to a game!? Seriously, that's not a good comparison, really.

BUT I understand your point as you made it before too, I'm just saying that I've seen independent developers put out good comparible software in a LOT LESS time.

[Marshall Ellis]

That's it!
Neverman is off my Christmas card list!

LOL! Maybe someone else could have done it better Neverman but here we are! You will not change who did this game

Take this to another thread (please if you would) so as to not sidetrack the main thought in this thread which is "Differences to the board game".

I am not trying to stop your conversation but only want to move it to another "Marshall stinks" thread for your enjoyment.

[NeverMan]

The "differences" between this game and Empires in Arms are seriously too many to count. If we were to name every difference this thread it would be almost every rule that is in the book and then some.

It's easier to count the similarities, maybe we should start a thread for that.

The biggest difference, IMO, is that the original boardgame is playable without concession and this one is not.

[obsidiandrag]

I hope all the pleasant bantor has not scared you away from the game...  Yes there are many differences, some good and some bad based on your expectations and wants.  Some for playability on the computer and some for ease of programming. 
 
To answer you actual question NO, there is not a specific site or forum for all of the differences. 
 
If you have played the board game (origional version) and are looking for that same level of playability.. it depends on how long ago you played for how well your memory is of the game as to the differences you will notice.  For me, several of the differences I skipped right over and did not notice until after playing for months.  Such as the MAP.. There are now additional minor countries that did not exist in the origional game but that does not mean it takes away from the game.  Many of the variants and alterations have been incorporated into the game such as Light Ships and Transports that were not in the origional either.. there have been both sides of the argument for ships strewn all through these forums but best to decide for your self on that one.  I personnaly like the challange of the limited carrying of heavies (non existent for light) and stumpy move of transports making them vulnerable.  But with the development (continual) of the Editor it will make it easier for you to alter the game to include or exclude what ever changes you like with the game.  TO INCLUDE changing morale and size of corps.  Still working on the leader options for adding and adjusting etc. 
 
I guess in my opinion the MAIN differences to the game are all of the extra screens that you have to look at and check all the boxes before the end of each turn (EVERY TURN) for all the just in case things that in the origional game you could just decide on the fly.  ie.. declarations of war (call to allies accept or decline) - interception and evasion of naval forces, whether or not to roll for control of a minor, and even who you will trade with for england.
 
Alot has been modified to try and make the file sharing for Play By E-Mail (PBEM) games a lot quicker as many of those games have lagged on at a pace far too slow to keep players interested..  And, many more alterations I am sure are in the future for it as well.
 
All in all, I really enjoyed the origional (back when I had time to play) and enjoy this chance to play the computer (modified) version just for the fact it is similar enough to the old game to still enjoy kicking the computers butt..  (and not having your friends gang up on you after ).
 
OD

[Kwik E Mart]

arehb,
Biggest difference in the board game and this version? In the board game, if a rules dispute came up, and the group was halfway decent in getting along and resolving conflict, an agreement was made, a decision implemented and the game moved on. In this version you are typically STUCK with whatever has been coded as the "rules". No ifs-ands-or buts. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that in my mind, this is THE major concession we make/made to play the computer version. Unfortunately, I have seen players quit in the middle of PBEM games due to this - far more quitters than in the FtF version. Yes, I quit some PBEM games myself, but that was due to bugs - another (well documented) story completely.

edit - Let me add that many of the bugs have been "squashed" and Marshall Ellis has and will go out of his way to keep a PBEM game going if you send him save files....

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

The "differences" between this game and Empires in Arms are seriously too many to count. If we were to name every difference this thread it would be almost every rule that is in the book and then some.

It's easier to count the similarities, maybe we should start a thread for that.

The biggest difference, IMO, is that the original boardgame is playable without concession and this one is not.

Well, at least you're closer. Much better Thank you! LOL!

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

The "differences" between this game and Empires in Arms are seriously too many to count. If we were to name every difference this thread it would be almost every rule that is in the book and then some.

It's easier to count the similarities, maybe we should start a thread for that.

The biggest difference, IMO, is that the original boardgame is playable without concession and this one is not.

Well, at least you're closer. Much better Thank you! LOL!

Its slowly moving in the right direction.

One of my major concerns is still the forced "auto-defend 1 corps battles", its unbalanced"game wise" (since defender has no idea who he fights, if he wants to select a chit), same for naval battles! Both should require file-exchange(sorry thats how i feel it might slow some games but it adds a better game-balance).

The "corps not acting as garrison for port defense" as mentioned.
The "security level of battles, including naval" should be upgraded some, as described in other threads.
The combined movement, its hard to implement with the current system, its been discussed to "have MP's combine movement where they all move before any battles, 'but then this would not work in naval phase "break-blockade' ".

Naval retreats are still somewhat random (like not chosing garrisoned ports).

Some special rules are not implemented, but some of those are hard to put into a pbm game, so have to be a sort of compromise.
EIH, some sort of naval part of the system implemented.
Also the OOC of some corps is changed. Think(Fr/Au/Pr/Ru)

Regards
Bresh

[Grapeshot Bob]

In my opinion the major difference between the board game and the Matrix version is that the board game is playable.
 
 
GSB

[obsidiandrag]

Ah and we are back to hijacking..  this is a difference of opinion not of the games..
 
OD

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Ah and we are back to hijacking..  this is a difference of opinion not of the games..

OD

You're right, lets make it FACT and not OPINION:

The biggest difference is that the boardgame doesn't cause game stopping/changing bugs and the PC version DOES!!!!!!

Better dragon?

[anarchyintheuk]

I've found the opposite to be true. Although I play against the AI, the pc game has always been playable. 2 out of the 3 boardgames I played ended because of rules disagreements.

[obsidiandrag]

ALL of the PBEM games I have been in have ended due to players - not bugs (fact)
 
I am able to sit through an entire game vs AI and play at my time and availability which you can not do with the board game (fact)
 
So in my opinion or your fact I view it the other way around, the pc version of the game that I play is playable,
   the boarg game version sitting in my collection collecting dust is not as a one player and I don't have the time or patience to get 6 others to join in.
 
OD

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

ALL of the PBEM games I have been in have ended due to players - not bugs (fact)

I am able to sit through an entire game vs AI and play at my time and availability which you can not do with the board game (fact)

So in my opinion or your fact I view it the other way around, the pc version of the game that I play is playable,
  the boarg game version sitting in my collection collecting dust is not as a one player and I don't have the time or patience to get 6 others to join in.

OD

Playable? That is another thread.

Yes, you can play the board game with 1 player. In fact, I have found that the boardgame is much more enjoyable with 1 player than the PC version, again... so that is just your OPINION.

Is it possible that the reason players keep quitting is BECAUSE of the game stopping/changing bugs? This has been my experience, players get tired of all the BUGS and decide that it is not worth their time to continue due to all the BUGS (this is a fact).

So, my point remains that the boardgame is bug-free (or can at least be decided by the house and moved on with) and that the PC version has bugs and since we can't modify the game mid-game or change the code (which I fully support this thing going Open!! ) they are nonworkaround bugs.

[obsidiandrag]

Of course for other differences you can enjoy are :
 
Setup time for the game (and leaving it up in-between turns) to be a BIG difference.  Even if playing by your self...
 
Accountability of builds and supply being conducted for you.
 
Calculating you $/MP for each econ automatically vs everyone trying to add up countries all over the map.
 
Time saved vs pancil and paper tracking of money, reinforcements, troop strengths and alliances and wars, not to mention movement on the pp chart
 
Judge for yourself the differences rather than listening to the rantings of a few disgruntled players who would rather bring it down than try and help it get to where we ALL want it to be.  I personally never enjoyed a board game by myself for there is always a bias involved even against your self - you always know what your opponent is doing..
 
OD
 
 

[NeverMan]

I agree with dragon that it is a BIG plus that a computer can compute for you... if only this game did the computations correct, that would be something!

I also agree that leaving the boardgame up was a huge hassle and even trying to find a decent table to play on and seat 7 guys with their food, smokes, drinks, etc.. and then a room to play in? WOW, what a mess!!

Also, sometimes corps would move around (we used sticky putty but sometimes it would get unstuck)... however, this is not much different than the current PC version as it has bugs that move your corps around and causes corps to disappear altogether.

[Grapeshot Bob]

I'm sorry I started this digression. I was trying to be funny.

Please send any further comments regarding the playability of the game to the "Playable Yet?, part II" Thread.


GSB

[borner]

I agree, the discussion on the problems of the game belong elsewhere.
 
As to this question, the differences to the old board game are serious. From teh mpa - although there is  a "classic" Eia mop supposedly coming... but was this not supposed to be EiA anyway?  For me, no combines movement is a huge change. Made all the more serious when you consider loanind your troops does not work properly, especially with combined armies and leaders. It is not "classic EiA"
 
However, if the system would ever work, it does have the potential to be a good product, as others have mentioned, not having to calcualte things on paper, leae the game set up on a table for months, making it easier to find players as they can live anywhere, ect, are all advantages.

[Marshall Ellis]

I must admit that "loaning forces" has not simulated the combined movement as I hoped it would. Definitely a big difference.

[Jimmer]

I think there's a relatively easy way to correct it. I mentioned this before, but it didn't go very far.
 
The idea would be to allow a players turn in the order of major powers to be flexible, month-to-month. Keep the same loaned corps ideas (possibly with depot supply changed as per the other thread), but move the whole phase to a different slot in the order. You already have to do this with France for land and GB for naval. Just externalize that for all of the other majors. An exception could be made for the nation last in the order (if needed), since their position could never change.
 
The value this presents is that France (or GB, for naval) can't go between the two allies, because their order numbers get placed next to each other.
 
SOmething that would have to change is the spinner-like arrangement you have now for France and GB choosing their position. You would have to disallow choices between the two powers with loaned corps.
 
Note that the two powers would still be separate turns. The change would only do the gross ordering, not true combined movement. But, it would prevent France from splitting the allies, a major problem with loaned corps.