Start with the basics

[YohanTM2]

I really hope that the opportunity to play the "classic" (if you will) version of EiA will exist.

I agree that there are many great options available that can enhance the game but the ability to compete with the original should also be available.

Similtaneous movement is a great optiton for most wargames but may prove a challenge with EiA. The inherent and important ability of France and England to select their movement positioning is a strong benefit.

I am really looking forward to finally getting a 7 player game happening

[Uncle Toby]

I guess I see the initiative system as another relic, if anything worse than the supply one. Certainly it gives England and France a necessary edge but couldn’t this effect be achieved by some other mechanism more appropriate to the computer?

What you call ‘rules’ like the movement initiative, I call ‘mechanisms’ because it is a more accurate term, implying as it does that these systems have or should have a purpose in the game, they are designed to achieve some result. It is the result that matters not how you get there. Preserving such a relic is like putting a coal burning stove on the space shuttle to keep the astronauts warm.

[VictorH]

If this game has simultaneous movement or real-time it won't be the original game and I won't buy it!

[jnier]

I cast my vote stongly in favor of simultaneous movement. I am a great admirer of EIA, but not a regular player of EIA because PBEM games just take too long. The simultaneous movement will greatly speed play. IMHO, it will also add realism as well.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by VictorH
If this game has simultaneous movement or real-time it won't be the original game and I won't buy it!

I agree with you if "real time" means that this is an arcade-style game. I doubt that it is. "Real time," I think, from Matrix's previous designs, would mean allowing the game to cycle through turns until you command it to stop and let you update your orders.

I don't think I have a big problem with that, unless the game is designed under the assumption that this is the default. I want diplomatic, strategic, and operational control for each turn (I believe that the intention is quarterly turns). If I can't have that, I don't want this game, either.

Simultaneous movement is another matter. As many other posters have pointed out (often before this became a "recreate EiA as a computer game" project), SM may be a necessity for a computer game, particularly one intended for multi-player PBEM. Uncle Toby makes a good point, I think, in suggesting that the initiative effect can be preserved in a more sophisticated, computer-based mechanic.

I am prepared to trust the designers to come up with a satisfactory translation of EiA into a computer game. Matrix and 2by3 haven't let me down yet, and staff comments so far lead me to believe that they are not going to follow slavishly the design dictates of the print game, which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, has its strengths and weaknesses, and possesses characteristics that require modification in becoming a successful electronic, rather than a paper-and-cardboard, simulation.

To be honest with you, I would rather have seen an adaptation of the old Avalon Hill title "War and Peace" than EiA. Still, my interest in acquiring a competently designed strategic-level Napoleonic game is so strong that I intend to buy this one anyway.

[Uncle Toby]

As Pasternakski said, real-time, is a very bad mechanism for strategy games. One of the worst faults in ‘Europa Universalis’ is their insane inclusion of real-time movement. The only value of real-time is to force a decision, unfortunately it is inevitable that at some point many decisions will be required at once (or that advantages will be gained by doing things manually) and when this happens decisions become reactions, the game becomes less strategy than arcade.

Simultaneous input, simultaneous resolution would be the best system for a computer version of EiA in my opinion. I could suggest several ways to maintain the initiative edge, though they’d have to be play-tested to determine if they were sufficient.

[David Heath]

Hi Guys

We never ever said real time. We are working on the design and how we plan on do it.... before you all make up your minds to buy it or drop it give us some time. Remember we are EIA / EIH fans.

David Heath

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by David Heath
Hi Guys

We never ever said real time. We are working on the design and how we plan on do it.... before you all make up your minds to buy it or drop it give us some time. Remember we are EIA / EIH fans.

David Heath

Well, David, I don't think anybody here is making up his mind about buying or not buying the game at this point. I just see guys expressing their preferences in hope that they will be heard. As I said earlier, I trust the design team to come up with a winner, and I plan to obtain it and give it a shot no matter what the (sometimes misleading) description says it is.

The primary points of discussion here and on other threads have been:

-How close to an exact replica of EiA should the game be?
-Is simultaneous movement a desirable approach to game play mechanics?
-What should the AI be like, considering the heavy emphasis on politics, statesmanship, and negotiation that will be a major component of the game?
-What is the nature of "real time" play, and how desirable would this be as a fundamental element of the game mechanics?

This is probably not a comprehensive list, but it covers most of our major areas of speculation, I think.

Besides, David, other than playing UV, PW, WiR, and SPWAW, we ain't got nothin' to do but speculate ...

[JParton]

"I guess I see the initiative system as another relic, if anything worse than the supply one. Certainly it gives England and France a necessary edge but couldn’t this effect be achieved by some other mechanism more appropriate to the computer? "

*Such as?

[Uncle Toby]

There are at lot of possibilities, far too many to list much less explain adequately, but I can outline the process of arriving at one and perhaps suggest a few lines to pursue. Of course any change would have to be tested to see how it interacts with other areas of the game.

The first thing is to analyze exactly what effect the current mechanism has, (this would lead to a very long dissertation as well). Decide, then which of these effects are important or desirable and if other effects not in the original might also be good to add in this area. I’ll concentrate on the last move/first move effect since that seems to be the one most people are concerned about losing.

The most important effect of LMFM is to give the player a wider range of options to meet, avoid or make attacks. This could be simulated or even improved in a simultaneous input/output computer mechanism. First, of course, the player could still call his move in a SISO system. The computer would simply execute it in that order, the extra intelligence would be missed out as the player would not get to see his opponent’s first move before deciding his but this could be more than made up by giving additional types of orders other than simply ‘move here’. You could have an addendum to a move order of ‘avoid’ or ‘seek’ combat which would allow the computer to ‘react’ your move in that direction. This would open a lot of interesting options as you could rate each player, or even each commander for initiative, not just France and England.

A more radical departure would be to give corps and army commanders elaborate personalities and to make campaign orders more general, letting them handle movement and combat as they see fit. This might be a little too much like watching the computer play a game for some people, but if done right it would loose nothing of value in EiA and would open options of gaming as yet unexplored. Think ‘The Sims’ meets ‘Europa Universalis’ with turns.

[Repo Man]

Regarding how close to the "basics" the game is intended to be, here is what Matrix says:


The computer version will allow players to play the "Classic Edition" and an "Enhanced Edition." The Enhanced Edition will add many new features to the game. Gamers will be able to pick and chose the options they want to play.


So it seem Matrix is one step ahead of this "debate." There is going to be an EiA which is pretty much the board game. There is going to to be an EiA with additional features, probably dealing with the same requests brought up here.


So it looks like the game will have options to make nearly everyone happy.

[strategy]

Get a grip.

Is there really anyone who is seriously going to say:
"Well, it's not exactly like the boardgame Empires in Arms, so therefore I will not buy it because it can not possibly be a good game."

Yeah, right.

Aside from which, Empires in Arms - while at core a great game - suffers from a huge number of design flaws. Which sort of begs the question with relation to the "Classic Mode": What's the point? That we will now have a flawed game with all the additional restrictions and limitations that a computer interface will inevitably bring to the game? What a wonderful prospect. :rolleyes:

Sorry to play the devil's advocate here, but I really think the team ought to concentrate on building the best possible COMPUTR game based on the Empires in Arms mechanisms - not try to port a boardgame to the computer. Porting boardgames faithfully only works if you're dealing with simply, primarily non-player interaction games. EiA is neither simple, nor non-interactive.

[YohanTM2]

Sorry "Strategy" you are wrong.

There are many people who played EiA that thought it was/is a great game. As with any game there is the opportunity to make changes/additions which some will like and others will not. That is the purpose of options.

I really don't care if you feel the game is flawed, if so don't play. If you build the original (or as close as is feasible) with options you offer the best of both worlds, not just your personal biases.

[jnier]

Originally posted by Yohan

I really don't care if you feel the game is flawed, if so don't play. If you build the original (or as close as is feasible) with options you offer the best of both worlds, not just your personal biases.

I see your point Yohan, but LOTS of people feel that the full campaign game of "Classic Computer EIA" will be simply unplayable if it is ported exactly as is. I'd like to see it tweaked to make easier (or at least possible) to complete the full campaign game.

For example, will people have to send separate emails to input their choices of battle chits everytime a battle takes place - like in the boardgame version. A mechanic like that surely has to go...even in the "Classic EIA" version of the computer game.

[Uncle Toby]

Well, Yohan, you’re not exactly’right’ yourself.

As I said before people play games for different reasons and so not everyone wants the same thing from a game. For some people EiA aims at the perfect mix of history and strategy and the exact type of contest of skill they want. From the point of view of intent EiA may be perfect for some people.

In realizing that intention is where EiA falls short and any thoughtful person can see that. .A board game simply cannot do some things a computer game can, to refuse to make use of the computer’s potential except in a narrowly focused way is shortsighted. Where do ‘options’ end and revisions begin? Some valuable improvements might be incompatible with the use of options.

I remember the first game of EiA I ever played, as Britain. I realized that provided there were enough ships in port it was worth it to mass the British navy and run the guns. Before the French could react to disperse I sunk their entire fleet, then did the same to the Spanish, unbalancing the whole game. The rules were later changed to prevent this ridiculous outcome but that revision was unsatisfactory in other ways, it was just a different approximation. A computer could come much closer to the ideal..

[warlon]

you can't just run into a 90gun port and hope to smash the entire French fleet with whatever fleet England start with.

There will be more English losses than French losses.

[Uncle Toby]

Actually I think the break-point was 16 enemy ships, this was twelve years ago under the rule published with the first AH version. The English lose as much as the French at 16 but they also capture a few so they come out ahead. As I recall the entire campaign involved two attacks on the French and two on the Spanish, the English fleet was reduced by half but the French and Spanish were exterminated and incapable of recovering as a practical matter. Also my VP’s went through the roof. I think one of the first things they did to stop this was increase the number of guns in the port defenses, later the naval rules were changed.

My point is under the new rules ‘cutting out’ expeditions became impossible. The naval rules remained unrealistic and hence valuable neither as a re-creation of history or as a good strategy game mechanic. A computer version could do a much better job on both counts but it would have to dump the naval rules completely and institute a new system. This would be better for everyone no matter why they like the game.

[Hoplosternum]

It seems clear from this site that the game will feature Classic EiA as Repo man posted. I for one was not too pleased when Matrix announced that this game was going to be EiA because I believe it has a number of problems that make the Grand Campaign game rather unplayable or at least unenjoyable which amounts to the same thing. But as I currently have no computer strategy level Napoleonic game and after this I will have one I will still buy

Some people keep saying - just put changes in as options. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be possible in many cases. Changes to the manpower or money of provinces, leader values or combat chits may all be possible to a degree. But the AI will be designed based on principles about the victory conditions, movement system and combat system the game uses. If this is going to be EiA the chances of having options that radically change any of these are going to be slim as it would take a major reworking of the AI.

[Repo Man]

Originally posted by Hoplosternum
But the AI will be designed based on principles about the victory conditions, movement system and combat system the game uses. If this is going to be EiA the chances of having options that radically change any of these are going to be slim as it would take a major reworking of the AI.

Seems to me the AI need only be designed for the enhanced version since some have indicated they won't buy the game if there are *any* changes from the boardgame. As there is no AI in the board version, why include it for the classic?

Unless of course, the computer version should be an improvement of the AH version of EiA.

And BTW, I have;t heard many complaints how the AH version of EiA gutted the French. Does anyone remember the original French Corp sizes?

[Repo Man]

Originally posted by Uncle Toby
... The naval rules remained unrealistic and hence valuable neither as a re-creation of history or as a good strategy game mechanic. A computer version could do a much better job on both counts but it would have to dump the naval rules completely and institute a new system. This would be better for everyone no matter why they like the game.

Just curious, are you talking about the EIA naval rules or the EiH naval rules? I have never played with the latter so I don't have a feel for how the work in game, but they look as if the attempted to resolve some of the problems with the standard EiA naval rules.