The original FOW was fine. There can be no "complete FOW". That would call for every boarder to be lined with men, something which armies weren't able to do back then. Will there be garrison towns in every land area?
Napoleon, in 1812, had a general, and pretty good ideas about where (and how powerful) Ivan was. He knew pretty well where Wellington and Blucher were, too. He knew where Bennigsen was, as well...but nobody expected an attack in winter quarters. Even in 1809, he knew how many columns the Austrians were coming in. Let's not get too much of later wars in our heads.
Everybody had their spies. Knowing a corps is in an area and not knowing how much is in it is plenty FOW. I can remember a case where the Brits were invading Sweden in a EIA game I was playing as Ivan. I sent a huge number of corps across. They were weak, but looked impressive enough to send him back to his ships.
Questions about Empire In Arms
Moderator: MOD_EIA
EiA allways has a 50:50 division in opinions on all issues raised. The same is happening here again with FOW. Therefore I must put my 2c in, too. 
Original idea behind the game was to be a diplomatic, as well as military simulation of the Napoleonic era. Having that said, I think the original board game version with the limited FOW is just the right answer for this combination of goals. If you want to conduct diplomatic negotiations, you have to have some kind of inteligence reports on enemy's forces whereabouts. You can't trust an ally if you don't know where his main troop is. Also you can't put pressure on your enemies without having them see your show of strength on their borders.
Original FOW where you see all troop movement, but not exact field corps composition is just the ballance that is needed to make diplomacy playable, while still allowing for some nice surprises. Installing the spy network would be a necessity if you increase FOW level, but it would be to much trouble for to little gain.
Original idea behind the game was to be a diplomatic, as well as military simulation of the Napoleonic era. Having that said, I think the original board game version with the limited FOW is just the right answer for this combination of goals. If you want to conduct diplomatic negotiations, you have to have some kind of inteligence reports on enemy's forces whereabouts. You can't trust an ally if you don't know where his main troop is. Also you can't put pressure on your enemies without having them see your show of strength on their borders.
Original FOW where you see all troop movement, but not exact field corps composition is just the ballance that is needed to make diplomacy playable, while still allowing for some nice surprises. Installing the spy network would be a necessity if you increase FOW level, but it would be to much trouble for to little gain.
FOW issues and maybe a solution
Me thinks you over-rate the spys of the day.
Ships are something MUCH smaller than an Army Corps. Spys can't help there. Where they're patrolling is anybody's guess except when you play the boardgame. The boardgame's method of handling this is absolutely unrealistic for ships. Satellites didn't exist back then AND intelligence from spys was not correct all of the time like the boardgame portrays. Intelligence travelled so slow that by the time the news got to its destination the ships could have moved. Fog of War is a must.
Lining of every border with Corps? I don't think so. FOW is needed for land forces as well. Being able to accurately "see" in real time what is going on in Russia from London is unrealistic as well. Maybe there should be a certain range for a corps depending upon their size and composition. Spy networks could be modelled depending upon the nation's investments in it could add to this "vision."
****At the very least, I would be willing to accept keeping the FOW as the boardgame has it IF a player was allowed to have up to a dozen dummy counters for land and sea. These would be the kind that doesn't need any units in it to exist. Only combat could reveal them and when discovered, it would be removed -and used again at the players discretion.
Ships are something MUCH smaller than an Army Corps. Spys can't help there. Where they're patrolling is anybody's guess except when you play the boardgame. The boardgame's method of handling this is absolutely unrealistic for ships. Satellites didn't exist back then AND intelligence from spys was not correct all of the time like the boardgame portrays. Intelligence travelled so slow that by the time the news got to its destination the ships could have moved. Fog of War is a must.
Lining of every border with Corps? I don't think so. FOW is needed for land forces as well. Being able to accurately "see" in real time what is going on in Russia from London is unrealistic as well. Maybe there should be a certain range for a corps depending upon their size and composition. Spy networks could be modelled depending upon the nation's investments in it could add to this "vision."
****At the very least, I would be willing to accept keeping the FOW as the boardgame has it IF a player was allowed to have up to a dozen dummy counters for land and sea. These would be the kind that doesn't need any units in it to exist. Only combat could reveal them and when discovered, it would be removed -and used again at the players discretion.
Vive l'Empereur!
IMO, having absolute FOW would require a game system designed with that intent in mind at the inception. It's not amenable here to an ad hoc addition/option in a game like EiA. Were a new strategic game being designed, it would be cool to have reconaissance, "intelligence apparatus", and built-in means to foster a realistic Napoleonic FOW situation on the strategic level. Doing it by hiding units on the map is just wrong for EiA w/o innumerable extra rules and provisos needed to implement the concept. Given the tension in the EiA rules as they stand, this would seem to be an impossible task w/o screwing up the game completely.
The sides in this debate seem to fall into two groups.
1.) EiA fans which like the game the way it is. (of which I am one)
2.) People who don't care about EiA and want to turn the comp version into a completely different game.
What I get by reading posts from the Matrix people is that they aren't going to make major changes to the game and plan to keep it a close as possible to orginal game, as they should. I guess what I am trying to say is the group 2 people need to stop trying to change EiA comp game into what they want and let EiA fans have a comp version of the game they like. There are plenty of other games out there that meet the criteria groups 2 people demand. They should go buy them.
I am sorry if I offended anyone I just get frustrated by some of the posts is this forum.
1.) EiA fans which like the game the way it is. (of which I am one)
2.) People who don't care about EiA and want to turn the comp version into a completely different game.
What I get by reading posts from the Matrix people is that they aren't going to make major changes to the game and plan to keep it a close as possible to orginal game, as they should. I guess what I am trying to say is the group 2 people need to stop trying to change EiA comp game into what they want and let EiA fans have a comp version of the game they like. There are plenty of other games out there that meet the criteria groups 2 people demand. They should go buy them.
I am sorry if I offended anyone I just get frustrated by some of the posts is this forum.
It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke
-Edmund Burke
Actually most fleets were very easy to find in those days except for perhaps those heading for the West Indies or India. As one example, French fisherman sold their catch to British blockading fleets and neutral ships were often known to sell fleet sighting information.Le Tondu wrote:Me thinks you over-rate the spys of the day.
Ships are something MUCH smaller than an Army Corps. Spys can't help there. Where they're patrolling is anybody's guess except when you play the boardgame. The boardgame's method of handling this is absolutely unrealistic for ships. Satellites didn't exist back then AND intelligence from spys was not correct all of the time like the boardgame portrays. Intelligence travelled so slow that by the time the news got to its destination the ships could have moved. Fog of War is a must.[/b]
Matrix can evolve the game to what's expected by PC strategygamers in 2003 that includes FOG,etc, or they can make a board game copy that has limited gameplay appeal and is only played by a small amount of people..Hoche wrote:The sides in this debate seem to fall into two groups.
1.) EiA fans which like the game the way it is. (of which I am one)
2.) People who don't care about EiA and want to turn the comp version into a completely different game.
Ah, but was it mis-information or was it dis-information? The point is that it wasn't true ALL of the time like the EiA boardgame models.Yohan wrote:Actually most fleets were very easy to find in those days except for perhaps those heading for the West Indies or India. As one example, French fisherman sold their catch to British blockading fleets and neutral ships were often known to sell fleet sighting information.
Well, actually it really wasn't all that easy as you say. Take the case of Nelson in the Mediterraean when the French government sent Napoleon, an army and a entire fleet to Egypt. He had it pretty hard for a while when he was trying to find all those French ships if I remember correctly.
I dare to remind everyone (Hoche included) that at the very moment ANY rule other than the original rules are introduced into this game, it isn't going to be EiA anymore. So, it doesn't make ANY sense to fight the purist's fight about this. It will however be an enhanced EiA, which is the whole point.
Matrix solicited these ideas from US. Why? To make EiA better. Why? I think ASHBERY76 put it very clearly in his latest post.
Now, there really is no need to fret. Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but many of these enhancements (if not all of them) will have a switch to turn off (or on if one wants to.)
I am for the purists having their pure EiA -and I am for having an enhanced game as well. (One that is realistic to say the least.)
Vive l'Empereur!
Capitaine: IMO, having absolute FOW would require a game system designed with that intent in mind at the inception.
Probably true.
Hoche--easy killer! The purists can have their game, but we're talking about options here. Options--any options--are an improvement, because at the end of the day they're 'optional'. Empires in Harm is not Empires in Arms, but it's an improvement, and if I'm not mistaken, much of it is being taken into consideration for the computer model. If the Alteration camp is being told to buy a different computer game, why shouldn't the Purist camp stick to the boardgame version?
Tondu--well-put. Matrix came to the people for ideas and opinions, so we should not keep them to ourselves. My only hope, Purist or not, is that it turns out to be a great game, the comp equivalent of the board game.
FoW aside (and speaking of EIH options), I would still love to know if Army reconstruction (for Austria, Prussia, Russia & Britain) is being considered, either for 1st release, patch, etc.
Probably true.
Hoche--easy killer! The purists can have their game, but we're talking about options here. Options--any options--are an improvement, because at the end of the day they're 'optional'. Empires in Harm is not Empires in Arms, but it's an improvement, and if I'm not mistaken, much of it is being taken into consideration for the computer model. If the Alteration camp is being told to buy a different computer game, why shouldn't the Purist camp stick to the boardgame version?
Tondu--well-put. Matrix came to the people for ideas and opinions, so we should not keep them to ourselves. My only hope, Purist or not, is that it turns out to be a great game, the comp equivalent of the board game.
FoW aside (and speaking of EIH options), I would still love to know if Army reconstruction (for Austria, Prussia, Russia & Britain) is being considered, either for 1st release, patch, etc.
-
Bart Koehler
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Mt. Olive, NJ
Just to throw in my quick $.02. The intent is to keep the game as close to the board game as possible with the initial release. We will certainly add in features as we can, and FOW is one of those features being considered. Given the abilities of a computer version of a board game, FOW certainly is something that is feasible and gives a player using an AI opponent something to challenge him to a greater level.Hoche wrote:What I get by reading posts from the Matrix people is that they aren't going to make major changes to the game and plan to keep it a close as possible to orginal game, as they should.
Bart
Ditto! Well put. Thank You!Hoche wrote:The sides in this debate seem to fall into two groups.
1.) EiA fans which like the game the way it is. (of which I am one)
2.) People who don't care about EiA and want to turn the comp version into a completely different game.
What I get by reading posts from the Matrix people is that they aren't going to make major changes to the game and plan to keep it a close as possible to orginal game, as they should. I guess what I am trying to say is the group 2 people need to stop trying to change EiA comp game into what they want and let EiA fans have a comp version of the game they like. There are plenty of other games out there that meet the criteria groups 2 people demand. They should go buy them.
I am sorry if I offended anyone I just get frustrated by some of the posts is this forum.
-
Reg Pither
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:59 pm
- Location: London
Hoche posted :
There are plenty of other games out there that meet the criteria groups 2 people demand. They should go buy them.
I would love to know where all these grand strategic level Napoleonic games for computers are! I can only think of two - one was released incomplete and ran out of funding before it could be patched properly, and one was too unrealistic and tried unsuccessfully to incorporate real-time battles. But how many games of this type are available for the boardgame player?!? Plenty, I'd say.
By all means let's have a solid conversion of the game for the fans of the original, but lets have options to appeal to the much larger computer game market as well. Then we'll all be happy
There are plenty of other games out there that meet the criteria groups 2 people demand. They should go buy them.
I would love to know where all these grand strategic level Napoleonic games for computers are! I can only think of two - one was released incomplete and ran out of funding before it could be patched properly, and one was too unrealistic and tried unsuccessfully to incorporate real-time battles. But how many games of this type are available for the boardgame player?!? Plenty, I'd say.
By all means let's have a solid conversion of the game for the fans of the original, but lets have options to appeal to the much larger computer game market as well. Then we'll all be happy
Reg Pither wrote:Hoche posted :
There are plenty of other games out there that meet the criteria groups 2 people demand. They should go buy them.
I would love to know where all these grand strategic level Napoleonic games for computers are! I can only think of two - one was released incomplete and ran out of funding before it could be patched properly, and one was too unrealistic and tried unsuccessfully to incorporate real-time battles. But how many games of this type are available for the boardgame player?!? Plenty, I'd say.
By all means let's have a solid conversion of the game for the fans of the original, but lets have options to appeal to the much larger computer game market as well. Then we'll all be happy
Good point Reg Pither.
I wonder if the purists are so against EiA with options because they might not find very many folks that will want to play the game without them?
Or could it be that they loathe being equals with everyone else who has to learn EiA with FOW?
Maybe they hate the idea that their pet strategies might not be all that effective anymore?
Vive l'Empereur!
Don't option the game to death
From the title of my post you might think I am against options. That would be incorrect. I like options and there are plenty of options out there. The original game has dozens of options and EiH is a good option. There are different campaigns for example 1792, 1796, 1805 etc..
But you can option a game to death. FOW as being discussed would radically change the EiA "game engine." It wouldn't even remotely be the same game. Other options like this could be a tech option, popular revolt option, natural disaster option, alien invasion option, etc..
My point is that options are fine as long as they don't radically change the game but just fine tune it to meet individual preferences. And to me it seems that people who want radical options do so because they don't know much about EiA. Also I think people are mistaken when they say that an original EiA comp game will only appeal to a few people. It wasn't a demand for a Napoleonic campaign game that prompted Matrix to undertake this project but an understanding of the potential that a comp version of EiA has.
For those of you don't know much about EiA and are demanding changes to it I suggest you give it a try first. It is a great game that will port to the comp well.
PS
My opinion is not based on a fear of not being able to use my favorite plans. Anyone who has played EiA knows that no two games are the same. And by the way I'll kick anyone's butt (in the game) regardless of what rules or options there are. 8^)
But you can option a game to death. FOW as being discussed would radically change the EiA "game engine." It wouldn't even remotely be the same game. Other options like this could be a tech option, popular revolt option, natural disaster option, alien invasion option, etc..
My point is that options are fine as long as they don't radically change the game but just fine tune it to meet individual preferences. And to me it seems that people who want radical options do so because they don't know much about EiA. Also I think people are mistaken when they say that an original EiA comp game will only appeal to a few people. It wasn't a demand for a Napoleonic campaign game that prompted Matrix to undertake this project but an understanding of the potential that a comp version of EiA has.
For those of you don't know much about EiA and are demanding changes to it I suggest you give it a try first. It is a great game that will port to the comp well.
PS
My opinion is not based on a fear of not being able to use my favorite plans. Anyone who has played EiA knows that no two games are the same. And by the way I'll kick anyone's butt (in the game) regardless of what rules or options there are. 8^)
It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke
-Edmund Burke
Could somebody elaborate first what additional FOW you would like to be included as an option into the EiA and how would it work? Than we would be able to talk more precisely about the pluses and minuses of that option.
Just few examples:
1.) Would the corps that is using foraging for supply have a greater chance of being detected?
2.) Do the feudal troops have a remote chance of doing anything in secret? I mean even their raising would be big news throughout the Ottoman empire.
3.) What army size limit would there be to make it imposible to hide?
4.) Would you use "national modifiers" for the abbility to do ops in secret?
I still think it is not necesary, and it changes the game balance (engine) to much, but I would like to here the exact idea behind the FOW in EiA.
Just few examples:
1.) Would the corps that is using foraging for supply have a greater chance of being detected?
2.) Do the feudal troops have a remote chance of doing anything in secret? I mean even their raising would be big news throughout the Ottoman empire.
3.) What army size limit would there be to make it imposible to hide?
4.) Would you use "national modifiers" for the abbility to do ops in secret?
I still think it is not necesary, and it changes the game balance (engine) to much, but I would like to here the exact idea behind the FOW in EiA.
I'll say it again. It is ludicrous that the English should know in real time what is going on in Russia -no matter how much they paid. Likewise, the Ottomans shouldn't be able to know where every Corps is in England either. It is equally ludicrous for every nation to know where every ship is in real time. IMO, it just plain unrealistic for the lack of FOW to exist in a historical game like this.
I just won't nag, I'll try by best guesses at your questions pfnognoff.
1. It seems to me that a foraging Corps might also be able to better detect the presence of the enemy as well? Yet, in the end, foraging probably shouldn't be too much of a factor. While a part of a Corps foraged, not all of it foraged at the same time and it wasn't usually done at the beginning of important operations when secrecy was needed the most.
2. Not sure there. Maybe someone else might have an answer.
3. Sure, a huge Corps can be hard to hide the nearer it gets to the enemy, but do you actually believe that (-say the Ottoman Empire) would possible know (in real time) where a Corps was deep within French national boundries?
At the threshold of discovery of a Corps, size should make a difference, but what is that threshold? The province that happens to be next to your province with a friendly Corps in it? The size of your Corps should affect the equation, because if it was a tiny Corps, it wouldn't have very much ability to detect others. Should the distance be two provinces away? Working with distance seems the best way to develope FOW with size being secondary.
4. Did national modifiers exist? The French were great at times for sure, but can you give examples of other nations abilities? Some put more into spying than others. I admit as one who wants a FOW to be in the game that this might prove to be a difficult proposion. I mean we have no records of every nation's efforts in this area. Do we? Deception was used and some examples stick out like the French in 1805. Maybe in the end a basic type of FOW should be used without any national modifiers to be fair to all nations?
Well, that's my $.02 worth. I hope that it helps.
I still think that my idea of having a dozen extra "dummy" (Corps and ship) counters would help tremendously while not having too much work being needed to be done. It would go a long way to have a good FOW, IMHO.
(Example) When Nelson tracks down a "dummy" French fleet counter it could model bad English intelligence. The French player would then get to place his "dummy" fleet next to another (real of "dummy") counter and play would then continue. OK, there's a few more cents worth.
I just won't nag, I'll try by best guesses at your questions pfnognoff.
1. It seems to me that a foraging Corps might also be able to better detect the presence of the enemy as well? Yet, in the end, foraging probably shouldn't be too much of a factor. While a part of a Corps foraged, not all of it foraged at the same time and it wasn't usually done at the beginning of important operations when secrecy was needed the most.
2. Not sure there. Maybe someone else might have an answer.
3. Sure, a huge Corps can be hard to hide the nearer it gets to the enemy, but do you actually believe that (-say the Ottoman Empire) would possible know (in real time) where a Corps was deep within French national boundries?
At the threshold of discovery of a Corps, size should make a difference, but what is that threshold? The province that happens to be next to your province with a friendly Corps in it? The size of your Corps should affect the equation, because if it was a tiny Corps, it wouldn't have very much ability to detect others. Should the distance be two provinces away? Working with distance seems the best way to develope FOW with size being secondary.
4. Did national modifiers exist? The French were great at times for sure, but can you give examples of other nations abilities? Some put more into spying than others. I admit as one who wants a FOW to be in the game that this might prove to be a difficult proposion. I mean we have no records of every nation's efforts in this area. Do we? Deception was used and some examples stick out like the French in 1805. Maybe in the end a basic type of FOW should be used without any national modifiers to be fair to all nations?
Well, that's my $.02 worth. I hope that it helps.
I still think that my idea of having a dozen extra "dummy" (Corps and ship) counters would help tremendously while not having too much work being needed to be done. It would go a long way to have a good FOW, IMHO.
(Example) When Nelson tracks down a "dummy" French fleet counter it could model bad English intelligence. The French player would then get to place his "dummy" fleet next to another (real of "dummy") counter and play would then continue. OK, there's a few more cents worth.
Vive l'Empereur!
There are many small points in the EiA that make it a game and not the reality show
Take the fleet size being known at every time. It is not logical, but I think it is necessary to keep the game balanced. Without that knowledge in the game of EiA you just can't play England as dominant. You must do wonders with your fleet counters just to keep the French out. If you add to that the lack of knowledge in which port is the French army amassing then you are completely lost.
You are saying that you don't believe that the location of armies should be known to all in real time. Just be sure not to forget that one turn in EiA is one month of real time, and I would say that could be enough.
Your dummy counters idea is a very good one, and if this would be a forum discussing MT EiH version 5.0 then I would be all for it, but since this is a computer EiA forum I would be against it at the moment. I think all of us just can't wait for the finished product to hit the shelves, so adding a potentialy unbalancing (see England above) idea in, could make us all wait longer until they are finished with more testing.
Take the fleet size being known at every time. It is not logical, but I think it is necessary to keep the game balanced. Without that knowledge in the game of EiA you just can't play England as dominant. You must do wonders with your fleet counters just to keep the French out. If you add to that the lack of knowledge in which port is the French army amassing then you are completely lost.
You are saying that you don't believe that the location of armies should be known to all in real time. Just be sure not to forget that one turn in EiA is one month of real time, and I would say that could be enough.
Your dummy counters idea is a very good one, and if this would be a forum discussing MT EiH version 5.0 then I would be all for it, but since this is a computer EiA forum I would be against it at the moment. I think all of us just can't wait for the finished product to hit the shelves, so adding a potentialy unbalancing (see England above) idea in, could make us all wait longer until they are finished with more testing.
Pure EIA in one sense is not a balanced game (anyone care to argue that France and Spain are on equal footing?). But it is pretty balanced historically. What is the problem with altering the game--why the preference for game realism over historical realism?
Good point about English fleet dominance. Points like these are why there should always be playtesters. But FOW is, like any other game mechanism, something that would allow good players to shine and bad ones to fade. It would hopefully put computer AI and human I on a more equal footing.
As far as the extent of FOW, maybe something along these lines:
Gametime is a month/turn, so each country has knowledge of what's going on up to 3 spaces away in every direction from its national & controlled borders. True, an army could hide 4 spaces away, but then to surprise-attack it'd be force-marching in. Yes, yet again, spy networks. This would encompass everything from hiring spys to paying off ambassadors to encouraging defectors (political instability might affect this?) It's easy to create networks in ports, and other cosmopolitan cities, more difficult and expensive in the farther reaches. Everyone has a certain # of spy networks to set up at the start of the game, and throughout its course certain countries (Brit, France, Aus) will have much more interest in creating & maintaining new ones. Then again there's counter-espionage, which would allow one to destroy or corrupt other's networks, and again political dominance among other things would affect it.
Spy and couterspy networks would allow players to manipulate FOW.
Good point about English fleet dominance. Points like these are why there should always be playtesters. But FOW is, like any other game mechanism, something that would allow good players to shine and bad ones to fade. It would hopefully put computer AI and human I on a more equal footing.
As far as the extent of FOW, maybe something along these lines:
Gametime is a month/turn, so each country has knowledge of what's going on up to 3 spaces away in every direction from its national & controlled borders. True, an army could hide 4 spaces away, but then to surprise-attack it'd be force-marching in. Yes, yet again, spy networks. This would encompass everything from hiring spys to paying off ambassadors to encouraging defectors (political instability might affect this?) It's easy to create networks in ports, and other cosmopolitan cities, more difficult and expensive in the farther reaches. Everyone has a certain # of spy networks to set up at the start of the game, and throughout its course certain countries (Brit, France, Aus) will have much more interest in creating & maintaining new ones. Then again there's counter-espionage, which would allow one to destroy or corrupt other's networks, and again political dominance among other things would affect it.
Spy and couterspy networks would allow players to manipulate FOW.
France moves four, so it would be a big advantage for them. Also if you use corps counters as reccon, then the nation with the most number of counters has advantage over the rest.shane wrote: As far as the extent of FOW, maybe something along these lines:
Gametime is a month/turn, so each country has knowledge of what's going on up to 3 spaces away in every direction from its national & controlled borders. True, an army could hide 4 spaces away, but then to surprise-attack it'd be force-marching in.