May Update

YohanTM2 · Post by **YohanTM2** » Wed May 07, 2003 6:32 am

Well the Ottoman can be easily fixxed

How if Kingdoms are not in? House rule? Who the freak would want to play Turkey?

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 07, 2003 7:03 am

Originally posted by Yohan
How if Kingdoms are not in? House rule? Who the freak would want to play Turkey?

Should not really be hard to code it.
I mean do a census, is the flag set, give the goodies.

Yorlum · Post by **Yorlum** » Wed May 07, 2003 5:28 pm

There are many benefits to the Ottoman Empire, if controlled by Turkey that are forgone if New political combinations are not allowed.

First and foremost, the increase in morale for the Ottoman [minor countries, NOT Turk home and feudal corps] is a major benefit.

Also, the remission of tribute is a substantial gain that is lost. The Ottoman Empire is unique among minor states in that it can give the controlling major income while a free state.

Question for the developers: What about the Podolian, Transyllvanian and Crimean feudal corps? Will they be available if the provinces are ceded to the Turk?

Le Tondu · Post by **Le Tondu** » Wed May 07, 2003 5:43 pm

Originally posted by pfnognoff
........As for all EiH options I would say, the more you include the better.

What beautiful words they are.

Yorlum · Post by **Yorlum** » Wed May 07, 2003 6:36 pm

As has been discussed in other locations, I think that EiH options have both their appeal and their market, but that such options would be best if they were ‘selectable’ though an options screen, allowing the user to play a pure EiA game if they wished, and add details and options as they become more accustomed to the game.

This is, with all due respect to those designers who put such effort and thought into EiH, *Empires in Arms*, and a good deal of the benefit of using the franchise is that you have a built-in audience. I urge Matirx not to ignore that in their development effort.

JRichert · Post by **JRichert** » Sun May 11, 2003 6:43 am

I agree Yorlum.

Also, in regards to bidding, that is part of this game. Some people want to play France, sometimes several, and sometimes the only way to resolve this is by bidding. Additionally, bidding also levels the playing field. If I remember correctly, France needs 400 VPs to win, and Turkey needs 315. This means France needs 12.75 VPs per phase to win, and Turkey needs 9.8. France is much more likely to meet this goal than Turkey, UNLESS bidding is brought into the equation. The person playing Turkey is probably not going to have her VP requirements changed much by this. However the person playing France may need to gain almost one extra VP per VP phase to win the game based upon her bid!

The Cossaks and Freikorps are necessary for all powers that receive them. In EiA they were treated as an additional Cav Corps with a strength of 1. They were great for additional cav support, but could reduce your tac rating if you used enough of them.

Wynter · Post by **Wynter** » Sun May 11, 2003 11:47 am

Originally posted by JRichert
France needs 400 VPs to win, and Turkey needs 315. This means France needs 12.75 VPs per phase to win, and Turkey needs 9.8.

Actually, they need to gain less points...
The Grand Campaign consists of 11 years (january 1805 until December 1815) with 4 economy phases each year. Thus average each phase: Turkey: 7.16, France: 9.1.

Jeroen.

sandy · Post by **sandy** » Sun May 11, 2003 4:09 pm

I honestly don't care for the bidding stuff, better to have the game set different objectives or winning posts for each state. At least thats how we played it at the club....

I just want to see the following

1- In single player, the ability to choose whatever state you wish without the fuss of bidding against the AI.
2- The ability to have multiplayer games which the (not sh*t) AI can take over the main powers that are not human controlled.

I am really looking forward to this game

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sun May 11, 2003 5:57 pm

W/o bidding France will win every game. Doesnt that matter?

Le Tondu · Post by **Le Tondu** » Sun May 11, 2003 6:59 pm

Originally posted by Chiteng
W/o bidding France will win every game. Doesnt that matter?

Why should it?

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sun May 11, 2003 7:00 pm

Originally posted by Le Tondu
Why should it?

If I am not France, it matters to ME =)

JRichert · Post by **JRichert** » Sun May 11, 2003 7:24 pm

Which is exactly why bidding is important, even if math isn't very important to me!

Hoplosternum · Post by **Hoplosternum** » Mon May 12, 2003 1:48 pm

I don't really see why France wins every time if you don't bid. Such multiplayer games tend to be self balancing to a degree. Also a bad first war that is fought too long can easily see France in the Fiasco zone when she folds. Then all the remaining minors go and shes lost dominant status.....

Besides in any multiplayer game with VPs accumulated over the game you get this horrible gang up on the leader factor. Bidding will not really help with this.

Most of us who are going to give up the time necessary to play this game multiplayer are not going to win (do the maths

). Many of us are going to clearly not be in the running for much of the game. Focusing on who and how someone wins is a bit of a sideshow IMHO.

Besides in all the games of EiA I have played (and other similar MP Boardgames such as EU) who wins is relatively unimportant. The fun, the balance, the topic and ease of play are what makes most play. Later the stories are about improbable victories, skillful alliances and treacherous double crosses as well as analysing the successes and failures of campaigns. Not who has finally won, which is more often decided by the actions of those who can no longer win rather than any particular brilliance on the part of the victor. Who really cares about Spain's boast that he's won because from 1807 he kept his head down and won by economically manipulating until the end of the game? Who would even want to be that Spanish player? But playing as Spain and ruling the Med or luring the French into the heart of the peninsula and watch his army starve to death are the real victories. Even if they are transient ones and not reflected in the final VP tally.

I know many of you have played games of EiA to the end. But most games don't go the distance. I think bidding is one of the least important aspects of the game. Much bigger questions are how interception is going to be handled and how England and France's turn order choice will work. Both can kill this game MP stone dead.

Yorlum · Post by **Yorlum** » Mon May 12, 2003 4:55 pm

I agree with Hoplosternum.

If you want bidding, there is nothing to stop you from doing it offline.

Just record the bids and assign players accordingly. Subtract your bids from the score.

It would be nice if you could do it on-line, but I'm more interested in the other aspects of this than something that has such an easy workaround.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:34 pm

Originally posted by Yorlum
I agree with Hoplosternum.

If you want bidding, there is nothing to stop you from doing it offline.

Just record the bids and assign players accordingly. Subtract your bids from the score.

It would be nice if you could do it on-line, but I'm more interested in the other aspects of this than something that has such an easy workaround.

If you want people to stick around for a 60 turn game....
You need to realize that not everyone likes to get beat up routinely. Part of the 'fun' is making sure that the person(s)
that bid too high, dont win. That extra turn you hold Kiev,
that un-needed naval battle, the casual loss of Holland.
These things add up.

W/O bidding, I know that there is no possible way that Turkey will ever win. So if I play, I 'donate' my time to the other players.
I 'might' do that, but my play will not have that hard edge, that trying to WIN will.

Yorlum · Post by **Yorlum** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:37 pm

Originally posted by Chiteng

W/O bidding, I know that there is no possible way that Turkey will ever win. So if I play, I 'donate' my time to the other players.
I 'might' do that, but my play will not have that hard edge, that trying to WIN will.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Go ahead and bid. just record the bids on an e-mail and subtract them out manually.

The game could say that France scored 400, but if they bid 50, you and the others all know that they only have 350.

Reknoy · Post by **Reknoy** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:39 pm

I'm not saying I disagree with the spirit of what Chiteng is saying, but I have seen a share of games where the Turkeys of the world win it.

So I think the global generalization may be a tad overboard, but bidding has its place with the right players to be certain.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:42 pm

Originally posted by Reknoy
I'm not saying I disagree with the spirit of what Chiteng is saying, but I have seen a share of games where the Turkeys of the world win it.

So I think the global generalization may be a tad overboard, but bidding has its place with the right players to be certain.

If Turkey 'won' w/o bidding, then someone let them win.
Russia can easily defeat Turkey all by itself.

dpstafford · Post by **dpstafford** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:54 pm

Originally posted by Chiteng
If Turkey 'won' w/o bidding, then someone let them win.
Russia can easily defeat Turkey all by itself.

Hey, it's a seven player game. If everyone behaves rationally, then stop the leader alliances will emerge that at least in theory should give any one a shot at victory.

Reknoy · Post by **Reknoy** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:58 pm

I think it's all in how you play it.

France was able to maintain a game long edge against the rest of the world (composed of a list of solid players) due to Turkish aid. Turkey was run by one of the best players I have played with, and he simply gained the points needed.

Again, the generalization "someone let him win" doesn't really scratch the surface. It's being contrary without offering much in my opinion.

I agree with a lot that you write, but the broad brush approach misses, I think, the specifics that generally determine the final outcome.

I agree that it takes longer for a game to really "play out" and start to show front runners with any level of predictability (unless you bid).

Reknoy

May Update

Ottomans and other Turk questions

Options

Nope

Re: Nope