Start with the basics

[strategy]

Originally posted by Yohan
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.

Sorry Yohan, but obviously you didn't get my point.

The point is that - no matter how faithful you try to be to classic EIA a porting of Empires in Arms to the computer will not be the same as the boardgame.

Unless you are building this within a virtual reality world, the computer version will always have certain limitations that the boardgame does not have.

A simple example: one of the important gameplay elements of Empires in Arms is the free flowing diplomacy among the players. Russia and France agreeing to partition up Austria as 1809 comes round. Great Brittain offering powerful subsidies and offering to look the other way during the Russian campaign against Sweden if the Russians will desist. And the other nations chipping in sideways comments, offers, bribes etc. to muddle up the discussion according to their various agendas. This sort of vital games negotiation will never be able to happen in the computer game.

Another example: Combined Moves. In a boardgame you can talk to the player with whom you intend to combine, explain why it is a good idea, and then do it. Good luck trying to get this to work with a computer-controlled player.

A perfect porting of a complicated diplomacy-based boardgame like EiA simply isn't possible, at least not if it is to be a computer game, rather than a PBEM server.

So:
1. The classic version still won't be the "real" EiA.
2. If the classic EiA isn't going to be exactly like the boardgame version, then why waste time making it?
3. The computer allows for significant enhancements to the game. Why not make use of those capabilities?

[Uncle Toby]

Repoman,

This was EiA in 1990, we played five games more or less through and started several more. The game where I wiped out the Franco-Hispanic navy was one we adjourned. I haven’t seen EiH.

In 1993 our group pitched together and bought a six station LAN to play Civnet and since then we’ve been dedicated to computer games so I’m something of an expert on multiplayer computer strategy games. It’s rather like being a fan of some sports team legendary for losing. I recognize the market for multiplayer computer games is small and so gets all the attention of an afterthought but the number of near misses is so great I can only think the designers have got their heads screwed on backwards or there is something about programming I don’t understand that prevents good game design. That or it’s some version of planned obsolescence designed to sell more games. Buy, learn, discard, buy.

We play games primarily for a contest of skill, though we are also history buffs. We each have quite different personalities and abilities and would ideally like to compete in a game with as many channels to use our abilities as possible. What we see from the designers is the same tired formulas in shiny new packages, squandering the potential of the computer. Even when an exception occurs, Sid Meier’s ‘Gettysburg’ for example, one of the few games which really had a lot going for it (the only game which ever used real-time in a constructive way) the designers don’t seem to know why they hit it right, at least not if their design notes and interviews are anything to go by. SMG is one of the few old games we still play and even it has shortcomings which make no sense except as thoughtless or careless design.

[strategy]

I think it is actually extremely difficult to design a good multi-player computer strategy game (not classifying "pure" RTS games as such - Starcraft being an excellent multi-player game, but hardly strategic), at least if you want to have it being playable in single-player at the same time. Often, game mechanics that are best in a single player situation are not ideal for the multi-player game (e.g., alternating turns).

There are a few notable exceptions though: Stars! for instance is/was an excellent multi-player strategy game. Simultanous turns (so no waiting for players), short games (depending on setup of course, but a normal game rarely exceeded 50 turns), and lots of in-game automation to reduce micro-management. There are weaknesses in the game design, but none that relate to the multi-player aspects, IMO.

[Uncle Toby]

We looked at ‘Stars!’ but passed it because it didn’t seem to differ much from the standard 4x model, which didn’t seem to offer much in the way of a strategy game.

Strategy games are about decisions, the quality of the game is to a large degree dependent on the quality of the decisions. By quality I mean how much skill can be applied to the decision. Too often decisions in strategy games are either a guess or ultimately simplistic. Most games of the 4x type require important decisions to be made before there is any criteria on which to apply skill. Generally hours of gameplay will only call for one or two really good quality decisions, usually a choice to switch strategies or when to start a war. When multiplay is involved there are more quality decisions and strategies because you can play the people as well as the game but when everyone is competing for the same goal the game can fall into the problems of unstructured interaction.

The goal of strategy game design should be to turn decisions from guesses to educated estimations and to keep a complete understanding just beyond the reach of the mind. Many games are interesting during the learning phase when the player who catches on quickest can make the best decisions but eventually the formulas are learned and the game becomes stale. This is what we discovered about games of the ’Civ’ or ‘Age of Empires’ variety. In SMG they avoided many of these faults by graphically presenting a massive amount of information in a way that was easy to take in but impossible to process completely forcing the player to decide what information was key. The arcade affects of real-time were contained by giving a limited number of things to do. The negative effects of multiplay were eliminated by teams which could be balanced to allow for all skills.

[strategy]

Rather off-topic, but just a brief comment. As you say, Stars! is a classic 4X game. Back when I first encountered it, I was fairly dismissive as well; but I think it actually has a lot going for it in the strategy department.

For one it has a detailed ressource model; which again means that planets have different strategic values - rather than just being amorphous blobs of income like in 99% of the other 4X games. Resources have to be shipped from planet to planet, so there will be transport routes and chokepoints that need to be defended. And because there is a good deal of automation available in the game, this aspect doesn't drown in excessive micro-management.

There is a fairly complex intelligence game involved as well, with various levels of scanners, stealth systems, etc., making for some very interesting problems when deciding when and where to attack. Unlike most strategic games, it isn't enough to simply gather the hugest possible fleet and then just kill, krush & destroy - offensives required careful preparation with supply ships and follow up waves, intelligence gathering, and above all careful timing.

Of course the game also had some weaknesses; one of them being the fairly unbalanced races (some of them being waaay more powerful than others), but we got around this by restricting players from picking certain powers. And perhaps it would grow stale in time; unfortunately I no longer have time to play with the others (some of whom are still participating in Stars! games after 4 years).

To get back on topic, this was a game that was clearly designed specifically for multi-player. And I think there are definitely important differences between single player and multi-player games - this is something I've run into while working on Imperium as well.

[Chiteng]

The movement sequencing in the original game was a VITAL
part of the simulation.

Example:

French move first, England lands an army at Brest(after making sure that Nappy cant possibly force march to Brest in one turn)

Now

French wave moving First. British either evacuate or risk
a French double move that may find the first 5 corp + Nappy
outside Brest. That would likely at BEST severely attrit the BEF.

The Brits get to do the same with their fleet. This goes a LONG way towards simulating the very real fear that all nations had.

[Chiteng]

I play VGAPlanets4 and it does me just fine

[Reknoy]

I think a lot of the comments made in this post are (and perhaps this is unavoidable) terribly broad.

I agree with those that state that no "port" of a board game could be 100% realistic.

However, you open up a world of worms (emphasis on being more than just a can) when you suggest wholesale rewriting of the rules. At some point you can't call the game the same anymore? Just make a Napoloenic war game on a similar scale and market it to everyone who had too many problems with EiA.

I have been to several AvalonCons and have (at one point in my life) played numerous PBeM games. I love EiA and live with some flaws and come to terms with others (interpretations, etc.).

I would say that a faithful adherence (as a general rule) is the way to go. Same goes for graphics.

Besides, only a chump would let the Brits run the guns on 'em.

- Reknoy