Questions about Empire In Arms

Hoche · Post by **Hoche** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 6:10 pm

Will the comp game have a map editor to allow people currently involved in pbem games to set them up in the comp game when it comes out?

Yorlum · Post by **Yorlum** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:07 pm

I have seen some intriguing maps for The Americas and the Middle East in other places. Have you considered 'expansion' sets for EiA [possibly as a patch or follow-up product] that would incorporate these?

Bart Koehler · Post by **Bart Koehler** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 7:05 pm

Hoche wrote:Will the comp game have a map editor to allow people currently involved in pbem games to set them up in the comp game when it comes out?

This question was asked a few times in different forms, so consider this your responses as well, those that asked.

There will 'probably' not be any map editing because of the mere size of the map (approx 45-50MB). The map is cut into individual elements (or quads) and is maintained by the program. The province areas are drawn onto the map and then we trace the borders and make an area. This process would be difficult to allow the user to edit since editing the BMP would only be half the puzzle.

NOW that being said, it is possible and likely, depending upon response, that we will release our own variant maps in the future.

I hope that answers your questions.

Bart

shane · Post by **shane** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 6:29 pm

I second the question about new maps in a future upgrade--anything New World in particular. I've always thought the original EIA trivialized America a bit too much. Any plans?

Bart Koehler · Post by **Bart Koehler** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:17 pm

shane wrote:I second the question about new maps in a future upgrade--anything New World in particular. I've always thought the original EIA trivialized America a bit too much. Any plans?

There are no specific plans for add-ons at this point, only rumblings and thoughts. The architecture of the game will support it, so when things start to firm up, I shall let you know.

Bart

ABP · Post by **ABP** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:09 pm

Forgive me if this has been asked and answered sometime before:
Will it be possible to have more than one human player on each computer? Or are we required to have one computer (= one game) per player.

Will there be a hot seat mode, if 6 friends come over?

pfnognoff · Post by **pfnognoff** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:14 pm

I think it was already asked in this thread, but there was no answer.
Will there be chit choosing or will the players predetermine options for the AI/commander for the resolution of the land battles?

Thx

Reg Pither · Post by **Reg Pither** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 2:05 pm

I'd give Fog of War a big 10 on the scale of importance! Together with providing solo play, the biggest advantage of computer wargames over board or miniature games is the ability to provide hidden movement. So please patch in Fog of War as soon as possible!

But I'll still be rushing out to buy this game as soon as it comes out even without it.

Bart Koehler · Post by **Bart Koehler** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:51 pm

ABP wrote:Forgive me if this has been asked and answered sometime before:
Will it be possible to have more than one human player on each computer? Or are we required to have one computer (= one game) per player.

Will there be a hot seat mode, if 6 friends come over?

Surely, if more than one player needs to use the computer than that can be done. Hot seat? YES! Also note that if you only have 3 friends then 4 players could be computer.

Bart

Bart Koehler · Post by **Bart Koehler** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:53 pm

pfnognoff wrote:I think it was already asked in this thread, but there was no answer.
Will there be chit choosing or will the players predetermine options for the AI/commander for the resolution of the land battles?

Thx

Chits will be chosen, AI will chose their own chits and it does it
intelligently EXAMPLE: Turkey as a computer loves taking the high risk
approach (Assault, Escalated Assault or Outflank) so be careful...

Bart

Capitaine · Post by **Capitaine** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:11 pm

Don't know if I've made this point before, but I would not rush into wholesale FOW with this game for a couple of good reasons.

First, the original game did not have it, and we don't want to mess around with play balance in a game that is more a game than a military simulation.

Second, the turns in the game are monthly and the areas fairly large. Reconnaisance is not modeled specifically in this game, so it must be deemed present in the abstract. Plus, back in the day, it was difficult to hide armies so completely. A large army probably would be noted as present in certain locations via spy/informer networks who would relay such info back. Of course, that would be less than 100% perfect.

Finally, most of the real FOW that would be of interest would be fog within an area occupied by two opposing armies. But again, this is all abstracted so it doesn't really work.

Rule 2.4.2 provides the kind of limited FOW (only owner can examine corps designation/strength prior to combat or other event requiring it to be revealed) that is appropriate on this scale, IMO. If you have read a lot about this era, the general presence of enemy forces has not been too secret. But certain maneuvers w/in the space of a game area would be more finessed. However, that is -- as I've said -- a little beyond the scale of this game, IMO.

Reg Pither · Post by **Reg Pither** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:38 pm

Good points, all

As I've never played the original, I didn't know FoW wasn't represented in it. And yes, now that I've thought more about the scale of the game I can see how a normal 'blanket' FoW wouldn't really suit. But I'd certainly like to see only very rough estimates of formations being made available to hostile forces. Some games allow you to simply click on an opposing army and instantly find out every little detail! I hope that won't be the case with EiA.

ASHBERY76 · Post by **ASHBERY76** » Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:21 pm

NO FOW! you must joking?,the A.I will be murdered in singleplayer which 99% of folk play instead of multiplayer, and the sense of realism destroyed.

Black Hat · Post by **Black Hat** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:43 am

Bart excellent work:) Thanks for all the info. The FOW in EiA is part of the charm. Everything sounds great so far. I look forward to not having to come with six friends to play. or 7 or 8 after the first couple wars take there toll.

Le Tondu · Post by **Le Tondu** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 7:37 pm

Capitaine wrote:Don't know if I've made this point before, but I would not rush into wholesale FOW with this game for a couple of good reasons.......

I respectfully submit that FOW has to come in. This satellite view of Europe where the exact location of every land unit and every ship is known by every player at all times is just ludicrous. It is a mistake and only exists because a real and fair FOW could not be simulated (unlike now with a computer) when this game came out.

Hard to hide armies back in those days?

Hmmmmmmm. Napoleon was quite masterful in Italy in 1796 & at Ulm and Austerlitz in 1805. I dare say that the Russians did a pretty good job in 1812 as well. The Allies in 1813 were not too bad when Napoleon didn't have much cavalry for recon. Then there is 1814 in France where Napoleon had the Allies really confused at times. There are other instances.

A big part of war and wargaming is not knowing where the enemy is and using all of your faculties in finding them.

If you read translated dispatches from back then, you'll see that errors were made all the time regarding "where the enemy was" during operations.

IMO, Fog of War is a must for every wargame. Without it, computer EiA will be a half completed wargame -no matter what the scale.

jnier · Post by **jnier** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:39 pm

Le Tondu wrote:I respectfully submit that FOW has to come in. This satellite view of Europe where the exact location of every land unit and every ship is known by every player at all times is just ludicrous. It is a mistake and only exists because a real and fair FOW could not be simulated (unlike now with a computer) when this game came out.

IMO, Fog of War is a must for every wargame. Without it, computer EiA will be a half completed wargame -no matter what the scale.

In my opinion the fog of war in the original was just about right. You knew the general location of all armies an navies. But you have ZERO information about enemy strength. This is arguably more FOW than was present historically.

This is not a operational level game. Is is grand strategy and most operational and tactical matters have to be abstracted. And the reconnisance role that cavalry played is abstracted as a combat bonus for the side that has a signficantly greater amount of cavarly than the opponent. Again, this seems about right to me in a game of this scale.

shane · Post by **shane** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 8:56 pm

Capitaine had some great points, particularly about how much of the era's FOW was in an area that would essentially be contained in a sector of the EIA map. I agree with Tondu though.
I think it would be great to have FOW, and the ability to set up spy networks (think I mentioned it in a different thread). e.g. Pay a certain amount, and an area (or several) and you're enlightened as to the rough contents. You'd know there are 4 corps there, maybe who the leader is, maybe a rough estimate of the troops. They did pay all sorts of cash for this info back then. Certain countries pay more/less depending on the arena, e.g. Britain and France have it pretty easy setting up networks in most places, Turkey has it pretty rough, Spain might have difficulty setting up a network in the East, most countries have a hard time In Britain, etc. . The more you're willing to pay for an area, the more enlightened you are as to the contents 9and maybe surrounding areas, or obviously, the more areas you can spy on. Successfully place spies in a capital, and maybe get a rough idea of what that country is spending it's money on, etc. And then there's counter-espionage...!!
Also, IMO, the cavalry unit should be broken up into two or three units. Heavy cavalry should cost more and help much more in battle (higher morale?), while light cavalry is more useful in recon--they'd act like spies for the surrounding areas, which would be counteracted by how much light cavalry a nearby enemy army has.
Tied into this, I've always thought it would be cool to give factors an intrinsic Fighting Value. That way, Britain's Infantry might be godly with morale and FV, but it's Cavalry would not have the FV of France's or Prussia's. I think this would add more depth to the game by giving it more diversity, behind the curtain so to speak. For this, each factor would that's created would have to have it's own file?--I know it involves a lot, but what game doesn't? Maybe FV could be influenced too, for example by having 20 factors spend a few months idle under Davout, their FV's would go up .1 or something.
One question that I have for Bart (and I hope his head hasn't hit the desk by now): In the comp game, will with EIH option of army restructuring be incorportated? If Austria gives an unconditional to France, it can then restructure it's army. Prussia can do the same, etc. I thought this was one of the best improvements of EIH over EIA.
Sorry about the length guys.
Shane

Pippin · Post by **Pippin** » Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:23 pm

I thought the original rules seemed to work out quite well myself.

Hoche · Post by **Hoche** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:03 pm

Pippin wrote:I thought the original rules seemed to work out quite well myself.

I agree with Pippin.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:40 pm

Pippin wrote:I thought the original rules seemed to work out quite well myself.

As a boardgame.

Questions about Empire In Arms

Map Editor?

Maps

Re: Questions about Empire In Arms

Player constallations

Combat resolution?

Fog of War

Stick to original