Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Mardonius,

Yes, I love EIA scripture   [:D]

I will always tend to support ideas that a) increase the interaction between players  b) require more then just fighting battles  c) keeps the balance of play

IMHO, part of any good wargame is that the rules and game system gives the ability to allow any of the players to WIN the game.

My personal objection to some proposed options are that they would upset established play balance, or have not been GAME tested and thus I use the adjective CHROME. Pretty but serves no functional purpose.

Regards

That is always my main concern for adding anything is how the balance might be changed??? It is tough to see this far out in some options. I haven't wlays made the right decision here and have had to double back a few times. I guess you could call me a flip-flopper

I like the idea as well. However, like Neverman, I haven't seen a dominant status change. So it's not particularly practical except against the AI, which is a good enough reason I guess. I'm rambling now.

I have seen the Turk get dominant status after beating living daylights out of me (a French-eviscerated Austria) and then having the UK declare peace for some benighted reason. So it does happen, though in this case through human error.

More realistically, I would consider having the rule that a power be at peace be replaced with a rule that says "must occupy these conditions/territories for six months".* Then this Dominant Status is attainable and can not be sabatoged by pure gamesmanship by someone DoWing just to stop the dominance.

*All credit and future royalties for this sound idea are attributable to DC Whitworth Enterprises, LLC All Rights Reserved, 2008.

ORIGINAL:  Mardonius
I have seen the Turk get dominant status after beating living daylights out of me (a French-eviscerated Austria) and then having the UK declare peace for some benighted reason.  So it does happen, though in this case through human error.
More realistically, I would consider having the rule that a power be at peace be replaced with a rule that says "must occupy these conditions/territories for six months".*   Then this Dominant Status is attainable and can not be sabatoged by pure gamesmanship by someone DoWing just to stop the dominance.
*All credit and future royalties for this sound idea are attributable to DC Whitworth Enterprises, LLC All Rights Reserved, 2008.

Once again, I also agree and support this idea suggestion.
 
Everytime someone got the requirements, GB always declared WAR and that was it.....
 

But, wouldn't it be fun to be able to tell your grandkids that you had all of the things necessary to become dominant, and the only thing that stopped you was the world ganging up on you? There's a certain amount of pride one can take in getting even close. I mean, even Prussia, with her meager conditions needed, still has a really tough time doing it (mostly because of the animal to her West).
 
I know when I think back on the games I played, the one I remember the most was playing Turkey and needing only one of two things to become dominant. Even though, yes, they ganged up on me, yes, I still won the game, the thing I remember most is "almost making dominant power status".
 
I think, though, that the restriction on not being at war needs to be lifted. That's a historical artifact: Napoleon "became dominant" as a result of the 1802 treaty. But, realistically, France was already dominant at that time. It just took 200 years and a game to recognize it.

Intresting to read that the game balance might be touched. What game balance ? the ai is still braindead, there is no concept for the ai run nations - of course Mardonius is right when he asks to include Alternate Dominant Powers.

Alternante power this is one idea i support 100%. Just to repeat myself, seems someone thinks im beeing harsh on Mardonius when i dont like his ideas

Since to me this is EIA, it was even included as option in the standard rulebook.

And this is one of the features in my opion has a higher priority, than the non-standard options. 

This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.

Some gameplaying concerns, like Russia short 1 capital.

We also still have a hurdle, about the problems about kingdoms/Ottoman Empire about adding provinces after creation.

As it is atm, you cant add, and if you loose a province you can only conquere it back to your MP, not to your "kingdom".

Oh, and from what i heard, the ai still needs work.

Kind Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: bresh
This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.

This issue actually isn't in Mantis but probably should be. There's a special surrender term (unconditional only) that has to be applied to Austria to make the CoR possible but it appears to have been missed. I'll get my rule book out tonight and go looking.

I'm glad this thread has popped up again because although the other issues in this thread are mostly already in Mantis (e.g. issues 93, 94, 95) there are some that should be added.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: bresh
This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.

This issue actually isn't in Mantis but probably should be. There's a special surrender term (unconditional only) that has to be applied to Austria to make the CoR possible but it appears to have been missed. I'll get my rule book out tonight and go looking.

I'm glad this thread has popped up again because although the other issues in this thread are mostly already in Mantis (e.g. issues 93, 94, 95) there are some that should be added.

C.8 and C.9. One of them disbands the Holy Roman Empire. The other puts it back into power again.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: bresh
This and alternate Kingdoms.
The Confederation of the Rhine, was supposed to be blockable by Austria, till he gave in on surender terms.

This issue actually isn't in Mantis but probably should be. There's a special surrender term (unconditional only) that has to be applied to Austria to make the CoR possible but it appears to have been missed. I'll get my rule book out tonight and go looking.

I'm glad this thread has popped up again because although the other issues in this thread are mostly already in Mantis (e.g. issues 93, 94, 95) there are some that should be added.

This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

I agree with Del.

Matrix makes it hard for 2 reasons:

1. First, Matrix decided to call a duck a swan: they called this game Empires in Arms. This is going to confuse a lot of people into thinking that this is Empires in Arms (imagine that!! DUH!!), when in fact it's not.

2. The manual should be able to explain the differences but it's riddled with errors, so it's mostly useless. It also does a VERY POOR job of telling people HOW to play the game, which has been discussed ad nausem.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for logging it. That's a great idea so that we can collect deviations.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

I took an action to do this early on, but forgot about it. I'll do it sometime over the weekend (probably a chapter at a time).

Its would be a greta feature, as player are basically playing here in hindsight, and are attacking on Frances grab for minors after Napoleon one a lot of victories against the Austrians.
If it started in 1792, there would be more free states open, and make players do more diplomacy than what happens now

I have seen the Dominant status change several times, although mostly following an French or GB surrender with them loosing it. I have seen Spain gain this status - in a bargin with France to join, and actually obtained it myself as Russia. It was quite fun!
 
It does add much to the game, but I am unsure how much trouble it would be to add to the game, plus, given that the main focus still in on bug extermination, I am not sure it is even something that can be looked at currently

This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date.
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

I took an action to do this early on, but forgot about it. I'll do it sometime over the weekend (probably a chapter at a time).

I started this, but it's a lot more complicated than I thought it would be. Not because the rules are similar, but simply the gravity of the differences. It starts right in the table of contents. In order to match up the other rules, I have to re-number them all (actually, make the comparison routine realize that they are the same rule). This is proving non-trivial; I originally thought it would be easy.

Marshall:

Any updates on the feasibility of the alternate dominant powers come version 1.06 or so?

best
Mardonius

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date.

With words like "problematic" "difficult" "complicated" being used to describe this, 1.06 being the next one out and a host of other more immediate bug fixes needed for the current versions as listed in other threads, what do you think? And that quote was on dominant powers.