The units of the original game are very well considered.
They are easy to grasp. Infantry corp - cavalry corp.
When games are released now, they tend to make very nice "soldiers" representing infantry and so forth.
I personaly dislike this idea to a degree. What they should do then is show an army. Not just a single soldier. It is a contradition right there. The corp consists of several different soldier types, infantry, cavalry, leaders, artillery, baggage trains and on and on. This makes a little strange way of representing units.
What would be nice is if the corps are represented by the "marker" on the strategic map and you could "zoom in" on the corp and see the army in the tactical "view". All those troops arrayed to parade... or marching towards that city. Mmmm I would like that kind of game and the computer graphics of today could make that possible!
Regarding EIA, I think I will enjoy the game whatever the troops looks like or the map too. Just make it beautiful with "clear distinctive colours". I just bought MG space game divided galaxies or something, I am not so sure I enjoy the graphics in THAT game. It is to much "3D" to be enjoyable...
So when can we see screenshots of the game we are talking about? If those shown are from the discarded game, please remove them. They just confuse us non beta testers.
Regarding cities and towns in the north of Germany, I have been there a lot and studied history too. Most of those "old" towns used to be part of the Hansa and thus rather wealthy and well protected. Why else would the Swedish accept them as peace conditions when they marched all the way down to Prague in the war in the 17th century?
There are many good historical maps from this region and period to make correct historical maps with the "correct" capital city. The Napoleon period is not that old and very well documented.
Thank you for your time and comments.
Changing the map ??
Moderator: MOD_EIA
ryta, please read a bit better, alright? The "screenshots" are a couple of years old. That places them circa 2000. It is the EiA boardgame graphics that are circa 1970's. Do you get it yet?
The screenshot pix are fine.
The use of solider "icons" in a game like this is EXCELLENT! First, there will be a forthright way to distinguish between corps and other units. I have no doubt.
Second, the representative figurine shows the uniform of the typical national soldier, thus providing a bit of an education. The info/data about the corps is also available via other means. Again, the screenshots posted on the site are of a DIFFERENT GAME; NOT EiA.
Third, I like the look of the map and icons in the old screenshots (circa 2000). Is that clear now? :p
Not buying a game due to graphics? Have you been playing wargames long, or at all, ryta? Graphics are, probably, about at least 50% of the buying factor in board and PC wargames. Again, don't think your own indifference is the "norm" or even "rational". Graphics apparently are of little value to you. Not so to most other gamers I correspond with. I've bought many a game solely due to their graphical presentation; particularly their maps and the information they provide.
EiA the "best" strategic wargame ever? LOL, surely you jest!! Again, maybe to you, but I think there are some that also are "in the race". The "3rd Reich" series -- shortly to be remade into a global game by GMT -- is probably the "best" strategic game ever. That's my opinion. But then I'm not the one "proclaiming".
ryta, please try to understand that no one gamer speaks for all the rest, nor are one gamer's tastes necessarily even remotely the same as another's. Where you come up with these questions and accusations on matters of personal taste is curiously humorous!
The screenshot pix are fine.
The use of solider "icons" in a game like this is EXCELLENT! First, there will be a forthright way to distinguish between corps and other units. I have no doubt.
Second, the representative figurine shows the uniform of the typical national soldier, thus providing a bit of an education. The info/data about the corps is also available via other means. Again, the screenshots posted on the site are of a DIFFERENT GAME; NOT EiA.
Third, I like the look of the map and icons in the old screenshots (circa 2000). Is that clear now? :p
Not buying a game due to graphics? Have you been playing wargames long, or at all, ryta? Graphics are, probably, about at least 50% of the buying factor in board and PC wargames. Again, don't think your own indifference is the "norm" or even "rational". Graphics apparently are of little value to you. Not so to most other gamers I correspond with. I've bought many a game solely due to their graphical presentation; particularly their maps and the information they provide.
EiA the "best" strategic wargame ever? LOL, surely you jest!! Again, maybe to you, but I think there are some that also are "in the race". The "3rd Reich" series -- shortly to be remade into a global game by GMT -- is probably the "best" strategic game ever. That's my opinion. But then I'm not the one "proclaiming".
ryta, please try to understand that no one gamer speaks for all the rest, nor are one gamer's tastes necessarily even remotely the same as another's. Where you come up with these questions and accusations on matters of personal taste is curiously humorous!
-
John Umber
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 8:17 pm
- Location: Sweden
Best game ever...?
I have played several (owning a good lot of them too), and must state a few simple facts that most of you must agree with:
1. EIA is one of the few games where the "sides" are changing.
This gives the diplomacy strategy level of almost untold magnitude.
2. Units are included with several differences. Cost, movement, types, countries etc, etc. This is almost only better in "modern" strategy games from WWI and forward.
3. Battlefield strategy is a major part with their general. Is not the case in most games.
EIA is a very nice sum of all these. There are games better in some fields and some worse. The grand total is the beauty of EIA, not it's singel components. The biggest drawback is the time needed to finish the game and to keep all players interessted for the full term. Most games are just pitching two players against eachother to do their worst.
I think a computer version of EIA can achieve greatness, if the AI is superb. There must also be several interesting difficulty settings, to alow the players to learn and grow in the game. The hardest level should be like playing versus sveral "hardcore" humans with a nasty attitude of stabbing people in the back and a complete lack of humanity... To program this must be a nightmare.... Also allowing several "scenario" settups and playerchanges... like a editor included in the game.
I am as always looking forward to this game...
I have played several (owning a good lot of them too), and must state a few simple facts that most of you must agree with:
1. EIA is one of the few games where the "sides" are changing.
This gives the diplomacy strategy level of almost untold magnitude.
2. Units are included with several differences. Cost, movement, types, countries etc, etc. This is almost only better in "modern" strategy games from WWI and forward.
3. Battlefield strategy is a major part with their general. Is not the case in most games.
EIA is a very nice sum of all these. There are games better in some fields and some worse. The grand total is the beauty of EIA, not it's singel components. The biggest drawback is the time needed to finish the game and to keep all players interessted for the full term. Most games are just pitching two players against eachother to do their worst.
I think a computer version of EIA can achieve greatness, if the AI is superb. There must also be several interesting difficulty settings, to alow the players to learn and grow in the game. The hardest level should be like playing versus sveral "hardcore" humans with a nasty attitude of stabbing people in the back and a complete lack of humanity... To program this must be a nightmare.... Also allowing several "scenario" settups and playerchanges... like a editor included in the game.
I am as always looking forward to this game...
John Umber
-
HordesOfSerbs
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 3:47 pm
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Originally posted by Capitaine
ryta, please read a bit better, alright? The "screenshots" are a couple of years old. That places them circa 2000. It is the EiA boardgame graphics that are circa 1970's. Do you get it yet?
The screenshot pix are fine.
The use of solider "icons" in a game like this is EXCELLENT! First, there will be a forthright way to distinguish between corps and other units. I have no doubt.
Second, the representative figurine shows the uniform of the typical national soldier, thus providing a bit of an education. The info/data about the corps is also available via other means. Again, the screenshots posted on the site are of a DIFFERENT GAME; NOT EiA.
Third, I like the look of the map and icons in the old screenshots (circa 2000). Is that clear now? :p
Not buying a game due to graphics? Have you been playing wargames long, or at all, ryta? Graphics are, probably, about at least 50% of the buying factor in board and PC wargames. Again, don't think your own indifference is the "norm" or even "rational". Graphics apparently are of little value to you. Not so to most other gamers I correspond with. I've bought many a game solely due to their graphical presentation; particularly their maps and the information they provide.
EiA the "best" strategic wargame ever? LOL, surely you jest!! Again, maybe to you, but I think there are some that also are "in the race". The "3rd Reich" series -- shortly to be remade into a global game by GMT -- is probably the "best" strategic game ever. That's my opinion. But then I'm not the one "proclaiming".
ryta, please try to understand that no one gamer speaks for all the rest, nor are one gamer's tastes necessarily even remotely the same as another's. Where you come up with these questions and accusations on matters of personal taste is curiously humorous!
The only person here who needs to read a little bit better is you. If you read my post you would have noticed where I said: "but everyone has their own opinion." Did you not read my post?
Second: We were discussing the graphics of the map on the SCREENSHOT not the graphics of the actual map.
Third: If you buy games based solely on looks then I am sorry. If a game looks good and really sucks then why would you ever play it? I know I wouldn't. 3rd Reich is a good game, but I don't think (notice the word I, that means me, what I think) it comes close to EiA.
Fourth: Those little mini soldier statues suck.
Fifth: Don't be so voilent in your posts man, try to pretend you are not a little kid. Thanks.
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
I agree the corps counters from the original game are better than some dorky tin soldier icon.
Hopefully they wil include a "use counters" option like in Hearts of Iron.
The orginal counter art was just fine. You could not possibly confuse a corps with any other type of counter.
If anyone wants to see an adequate representation of the game's original graphics look here:
http://www.soapyfrog.net/images/MAP_Mar ... _small.jpg
(Warning: pic is about 2MB)
Also EiA is certainly one of the best Strategic games ever made, especially becuase of it's strong dipomatic element.
3rd Reich never impressed me. Wordl in Flames does the WW2 thing with far greater elegance and style... although for strategic WW2 games I think Paradox's Hearts of Iron has by far the most potential (as yet unrealized).
Hopefully they wil include a "use counters" option like in Hearts of Iron.
The orginal counter art was just fine. You could not possibly confuse a corps with any other type of counter.
If anyone wants to see an adequate representation of the game's original graphics look here:
http://www.soapyfrog.net/images/MAP_Mar ... _small.jpg
(Warning: pic is about 2MB)
Also EiA is certainly one of the best Strategic games ever made, especially becuase of it's strong dipomatic element.
3rd Reich never impressed me. Wordl in Flames does the WW2 thing with far greater elegance and style... although for strategic WW2 games I think Paradox's Hearts of Iron has by far the most potential (as yet unrealized).
Funny you should say that because you used the same thing on meOriginally posted by Capitaine
Oh, how cute, the notorious "kid" spiel; how clever. Bet you learned that from personal experience, eh? Whatever, "pal". Now if your bombast is finished... [turns back on little clown and ignores him from here on]. :rolleyes:
soapy, here's a little blurb I found at ConsimWorld regarding the issue of the relative popularity of 3R and EiA at an upcoming convention:
BTW, I'm not saying one is better, but just that it's far from clear. Obviously, EiA is a good game. 3R and its progeny has clearly been more popular. Imagine if we'd have had a Napoleonic game with that much thought and detail put into it? Maybe Matrix's EiA will do that; I'm hoping anyway...
LOL, couldn't find anyone to GM EiA, the most popular strategic game there is, yet the 3R "premier product" is still hot hot hot!!A World at War ("AWAW", the combination of A3R and RS) is in the Worthington Room. We will be playing it for real because by that time the final versions of the rules should at least be submitted to GMT and unable to be changed.
BTW, there are only two people who will be playing A3R and about 16+ playing AWAW.
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel A Tamburo - 01:24pm May 5, 2003 PST (#809 of 1296)
The Ultimate Joelist. Big fan of the WBC.
Hi,
However, you'll have more room in there, because Empires in Arms is no more (nobody stepped up to GM it).
BTW, I'm not saying one is better, but just that it's far from clear. Obviously, EiA is a good game. 3R and its progeny has clearly been more popular. Imagine if we'd have had a Napoleonic game with that much thought and detail put into it? Maybe Matrix's EiA will do that; I'm hoping anyway...
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Originally posted by Capitaine
Maybe Matrix's EiA will do that; I'm hoping anyway...
... but I'm not holding my breath at this point. The deafening silence other than Marshall's general pronouncements from time to time is worrisome to me ...
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
One point is, soapy, that people are going to enjoy different games and, to a certain extent, their relative enjoyment will determine perceived quality. IOW, it is possible, I think, to define "good games" and "bad games" in a general sense. However, among those considered good, obviously there will be a great latitude among players who are looking for differing experiences. Personally, I do not like games as much that permit ahistorical diplomacy to a large degree. Therefore, I was more interested in EiA's combat and logistical mechanisms, as well as the hard political rules, as opposed to the pure "Diplomacy" elements involved.
OTOH, 3R (whatever iteration) gave you a historical situation, and rules that limited what nations could do diplomatically, while still allowing some degree of diplomatic maneuvering. Just not as drastic, for that would change the nature of WWII. The "old" 3R is obviously dated, but if you would like to see the "state of the art", go to GMT's P500 site and follow the links to "A World at War". Pretty impressive IMO.
OTOH, 3R (whatever iteration) gave you a historical situation, and rules that limited what nations could do diplomatically, while still allowing some degree of diplomatic maneuvering. Just not as drastic, for that would change the nature of WWII. The "old" 3R is obviously dated, but if you would like to see the "state of the art", go to GMT's P500 site and follow the links to "A World at War". Pretty impressive IMO.