Questions about Empire In Arms

[shane]

True France moves four, but let's face it: Britain, Austria, Prussia, Spain, and probably Russia would all be spying on France anyway. France might need that advantage. Naturally the one with the most counters would have the most potential to see through FoW.

[Roads]

From a purely historical point of view I think there shouldn't be too much FOW. Sure the Ottomans wouldn't have had knowledge of the locations of corps in England, but from a game point of view that knowledge is irrelevant.

The scale of EiA is largish provinces, corps, and months. Did anyone in the period achieve that level of surprise?

In 1805 the allies had a pretty good idea of the size and location of the Grande Army. The surprise was that it showed up on the Rhine so quickly, and that the army in Italy was smaller than they expected. These are adequately modeled by existing mechanisms (unknown corps size and force march). The Russians had a very good idea of what was coming their way in 1812, months in advance. They may not have known how "full" the French and allied corps counters were, but they knew where they were and where they were headed. The Waterloo campaign is a great example of surprise, but the army was pulled together in under a week, and it was the initiation of the campaign that caught the allies off guard. On 15 May 1815 I daresy Wellington had an excellent idea of the location of all French corps. I could go on, but the point is that the existing mechanisms allow for realistic treatment of FOW, and no-one could hide a large army.

I don't think dummy counters help much. What might be nice would be 'discount' ot 'militia' corps that might cost less to maintain and supply but would have a very limited capacity (3M for example). These wouldn't change much in the game but would allow for more (and cheaper) deception campaigns which is appropriate.

On the naval side everyone knew when a fleet was fitting out months in advance. And had a good idea of the number of ships too. Perhaps allowing strengths of fleets at sea (not blockading) to be unknown might make sense, but anything beyond that is, to me, unrealistic.

[shane]

Some good points. But how was all of this knowledge gotten? Spys, defections, etc. The Brits before Waterloo knew the entire composition of the French army because of a spy in Paris, and defecting generals.
But the question is, are we satisfied letting FoW being just part of the game, or do we want to let the players control that mechanism. Right now FoW is like a battle without letting the players pick chits. Chit picks allow the players to somewhat control their destiny. And a mitigated FoW would allow the same thing.
Even if none of this comes to pass, I'm pretty sure most of us will love the game, but these options should absolutely be framed out, and some of them should be coded and playtested for final consideration.

[Black Hat]

Do you want a game or IRL? BE CARFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR! Those of us who have played dozens of games with 6 “friends” (more like 7 or 8 as people drop), would like a “straight” port. I know FOW is a good thing and makes the game more interesting. Keep in mind that some of the Field commanders didn’t know what they had when the battle started. If you really want the FOW of the PERIOD keep the following in period things in mind:

I’m sorry; I had no specific orders so I couldn’t march to the sound of the GUNS.

I’m sorry which goat path.

I have three sets of orders on where to concentrate. Which ones did you think you wanted me to follow.

We got blown off course.

Napoleon, Wellington had to PERSONNALLY review the troops so he under stood there condition and number. I mean if you REALLY want FOW, than what corps and there strength and moral, should be determined at the point of contact. I mean should you really know what is in the ARMY or NAVY that you think you are committing to battle let alone what the enemy/ally think they can get committed. Charles was constantly plagued by troops that couldn’t or wouldn’t engage.

IRL the CORP/FLEET you think you have in an area and weather it will or will not be in an engagement is not the same as the one you do have. The game makes certain assumptions. Some of US who have played the game like assumptions the board game put in place |<:)

[pfnognoff]

I'm not an expert in history, but I do believe in those days, Armies were raised and then people from all around would came to join for the possibility to earn some money as that was one of the best ways to become rich. There were alot of foreign mercenaries, also. So I would say the building of the Army could even be considered a common knowledge and not something done in complete secrecy.
Am I very wrong or at least close to the truth?

[shane]

EIA is obviously an un-improvable game. So Matrix definitely should not try. A straight port will be fine.

[denisonh]

EIA is obviously an un-improvable game. So Matrix definitely should not try. A straight port will be fine.

Bull$hit.

[pasternakski]

Bull$hit.

Couldn't agree more. EiA was a game of mixed success and indifferent reception that has a small, dedicated core following. I was really enthusiastic about Matrix's attempt to create a strategic Napoleonic-era computer game from scratch, then pretty much lost interest when the "port EiA" approach superseded it.

I am biding my time to see what the "finished" product is, but have no plans to rush out and buy it right away until I get a sense from reviewers and other informed commentators whether the game is worth having.

I will say again, despite Matrix staff comments to the contrary, that the discussion here has done little to suggest that this is turning into a successful game design project or that firm control has been gotten over whether it is merely a "port" of EiA or some semi-innovative attempt at improvement. In particular, willy-nilly adoption of forum suggestions into a game design (if such changes are being made. Matrix staff says that they are, but we have no idea which ones are being selected) that is supposed to be based on a completely developed board game system do not bode well for the result. Changes in "mouthpiece" personnel in midstream don't help, either.

Pardon me if I remain skeptical.

[Le Tondu]

EIA is obviously an un-improvable game. So Matrix definitely should not try. A straight port will be fine.

LOL!

Trying reverse psychology are we?

[pfnognoff]

I have started playing EiA 1994/95 with a group of friends (some started earlier but that was when I joined). We did three big campaigns in two years. There was allways talk of things in the game that were not historical, things that were not logical, alot of endless discussions about possible loopholes in the rules, but one thing was allways clear, and that is, it was great FUN to play from bidding to chit choosing, from naval interceptions to guessing what did the enemy build and so on. As we went along we found several different options and variants. The most interesting was Michael Treasure's EiH. We came aboard with his version 2.0 and for some three years it was constant testing and arguing about different options introduced. It became even more fun to play then the original. As the version 4.0 was ready Matrix launched the computer port for EiA.
What I'm trying to say is that EiA allready has a lot of improvements from the original, but the one thing that it still doesn't have is a computer version. I'm trying to argue here that it would be safer to port what we know works well and is ballanced. For me that would be original EiA plus the best things from Michael's EiH version 3.0 (things like diplomacy on minors, more leaders, some modifications on corps, revolt, etc.)
After that, there would still be time to see what other improvements could be put in, to use all the advantages computers could give us over the board version.
I do hope we will all continue to offer ideas for improvement and argue them to death, and not decide to stop the forum as some sugested...

[denisonh]

A straight port of EiA would be about as genuine as a colorized black and white movie.

It is a game with board game mechanics. A computer version WILL NOT WORK THE EXACT SAME WAY. To do so would make it unplayable.

We than have a version of the game that is a half birth. Instead of improving the concept and game models to take advantage of the new medium, we will paint this black and white dinosaur in color.

Failure to accept that change is neccessary to move this game to a new medium is sheer denial. Embrace change for the better, and expand your vision to what can be achieved with this transition.

If you want a port, use ADC.

I hope that I do not get the same feeling playing this game as I did watching Casablanca in color.

[Hoplosternum]

I agree with pasternakski. I lost a lot of interest in the project when it became a EiA port. But that is what we have and there is little point moaning about it.

As for Empires in Harm already 'improving' the game I am not so sure. I think it only appeals to those who like the game already by adding extra options and chrome. It will not make anyone who thinks the game is 'broken' to come back and retry it as it does not address many of the key faults in the system. What it does is add a lot of chrome. Not bad if you want a change from traditional EiA but it does little to change the underlying system which is where the problems are.

For myself I always liked EiA although I could see it's faults. Sadly my game group wrote it off as hopelessly broken after a few abortive starts to the main campaign.

All this talk of this option or that is interesting but largely misses what should be the main focus. That is the Uncontrolled major powers AI. Can it give the human players any sort of game. I am not expecting much from it and I don't see anything wrong with it being both predictable and easy to manipulate. But a great problem will be (especially over the internet) trying to keep all the players in the game. If the AI cannot act as a stand in for Spain and Prussia (say) then this game is not likely to be much played. I would much rather they spent any extra time addressing this than special naval rules or different Corps set ups for a 1795 start.

[pasternakski]

All this talk of this option or that is interesting but largely misses what should be the main focus. That is the Uncontrolled major powers AI. Can it give the human players any sort of game. I am not expecting much from it and I don't see anything wrong with it being both predictable and easy to manipulate. But a great problem will be (especially over the internet) trying to keep all the players in the game. If the AI cannot act as a stand in for Spain and Prussia (say) then this game is not likely to be much played. I would much rather they spent any extra time addressing this than special naval rules or different Corps set ups for a 1795 start.

Absolutely.

If there are options that can be toggled on or off, for example, how in the world will the AI be able to cope?

[Bart Koehler]

I do hope we will all continue to offer ideas for improvement and argue them to death, and not decide to stop the forum as some sugested...

No worries, this forum will not be closed. And, your point is well taken. The reason I started this thread was to hear the voice of the masses. It gives me a chance to hear/listen to what you are saying. Keep in mind we do have a visions and we are not going about this half-cocked. And, while I certainly understand the hesitation of some, I only ask for your patience. There are many plans for EiA and we will deliver the best game we can.

So, keep the information coming, I am reading everything, though I may not always respond. I enjoy the discussion, both positive and negative though it may be. I am more than a mouthpiece, I can actually make things happen so keep up your comments, it is all helpful for me.

Carry on,
Bart

[Le Tondu]

.... I am more than a mouthpiece, I can actually make things happen so keep up your comments, it is all helpful for me.

Carry on,
Bart

Cool.

On your knees mortals we are in the presence of true greatness!

All Hail The Mighty Bart!

Prince of information and slayer of ignorance. All Hail The Mighty Bart!



(Disclaimer: Any resemblence of the above to anything even remotely considered serious is purely accidental and unintentional.)

[pfnognoff]

All this FOW couded my vision and I forgot to comment on one another important issue raised before in this thread.
That is the reduced move in winter. I know it sounds logical to reduce movement in winter but I think the other side of this coin from the original idea must be adddresed, and that would be increased cost for supply. If you can't move your full allowance than you will have lower cost to pay for supply, therefore more money to spend on reinforcements.
In majority of my games the increased cost reduced the movement, but if somebody wants to go for broke, why don't let him, and then kick his but in spring?

[Bart Koehler]

All this FOW couded my vision and I forgot to comment on one another important issue raised before in this thread.
That is the reduced move in winter. I know it sounds logical to reduce movement in winter but I think the other side of this coin from the original idea must be adddresed, and that would be increased cost for supply. If you can't move your full allowance than you will have lower cost to pay for supply, therefore more money to spend on reinforcements.
In majority of my games the increased cost reduced the movement, but if somebody wants to go for broke, why don't let him, and then kick his but in spring?

Point noted. I will review the rules on this to see how the board game handled this aspect of the game.

Bart

[Wellington12347]

Point noted. I will review the rules on this to see how the board game handled this aspect of the game.

Bart

In the original game the three winter months (Dec, Jan, Feb) had the following effects on supply:

1) The supply cost (use of depots) was doubled. E.g., 2 corps drawing supply from a depot two spaces away would cost $8 in winter months as opposed to the usual $4. 2 (winter doubling) X 2 (# of corps) X 2 (distance to depot).

2) Foraging die rolls received a "+2" modifier.

These effects were absent in the areas outside the "Winter Zone," generally North Africa and the Mediterranean.

As another posted noted, the increased costs normally meant that campaigning was severely curtailed in the winter months. However, players wishing to expend $ or suffer more sever foraging losses could take the "hit" and campaign if they choose to. Based on the dynamics of the original game, I believe this rule was more than adequate to simulate winter effects and should be used in the computer version.

There were no direct effects on movement from winter months as I recall.

On that note I would strongly recommend that the OPTION to limit depots to supplying only 4 corps at a time should be included. This was an option in the original game and made the simulation far more realistic. It prevented the kind of (somewhat ridiculous) "stack war" that has been alluded to in the posts. It also behooved players to develop more dynamic strategies rather than pushing a big stack of counters toward the opponents capital.

Ideally, all the options form the original should be available. That may be "pie-in-the-sky" though.

Jason

[alaric318]

hello everyone!

i have read all post and going to post my preference about it.-

i like the idea of limited fow but will like that all the major powers in the game

will have extra corps counters for intelligence gatherings, that is, cavalry corps,

this units only battle with enemy cavalry, are expensive to build and gather

information about enemy estrengh, maybe based in the cavalry total strengh

(more concrete information, with more cavalry strengh). Maybe they can reccon

a radius of zones based in his total strengh, if attacked by enemy infantry they

can retreat one hex and prevented the adittional movement of enemy forces,

only engage by another cavalry stack, this will add on a new dimension to the

game and will be fun to play the game with this adittion. To balance the game,

all the nations will have cavalry corp's but have morale modifiers based in

historical performance by each nation, this option can make obsolete the need

of build spy networks and i think is more realistic about the napoleonic wars give

light cavalry a important role into the game engine.

it is my thinking about fog of war and make adittional counters for the computer

version.

thanks you very much for your time!

regards,

Murat30

[demonterico]

Most of the games I'm familier with offer FOW as an option that can be turned on or off. If this becomes the case for EiA all this discussion about whether its a good idea or not would be moot.

Viva Espana!!