Classic Scenario

[bOrIuM]

Hi Bresh,

Im not quite sure, but its because I played once with Britain and was at war with a lot of MP + minor and still got a lot of money, didnt calculate, but was obvious for me they still got money from trade.

Thats what I meant

[NeverMan]

Personally, I really don't have a problem with anything AS LONG AS THEY ARE OPTIONS.

[yammahoper]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

This is a short list that i'd like to see from an editor or a classis campain:

4- Possibility to use stack mode on land phase, when you move the same stack, would be great. Forage and supply still be for each corps.
6- Remove the possibility for GB (and others), to setup in ennemy blockade box.
10- Possiblity to give money to any MP, not only allied ones.

I would vote against these as they deviate from the original EiA rules and have the possibility of unbalancing the game. Especially not allowing GB to set up in blockade boxes, as it means if there is a French port at the start that can be stacked with fleets and corps, and is outside GB's first move naval phase, it's game over very quickly.

Remember that in January 1805, GB and France had been at war for over a year, plenty of time to put fleets into blockade boxes.

The requirement to only lend money to allies is a serious part of the diplomacy of the game -- France can't sneak money into the Austrian or Prussian treasuries without allying first, and that is going to lend France grief later in the game when it wants to go to war with them. If France was allowed to bribe Austria or Prussia to separate away from the alliance without stopping the war and going to ally first, then it would be too easy for France to win.

Stack move has been discussed earlier, and IMHO it's a bad idea, especially if you're going to reintroduce the original rules for insurrection corps.

Yep, yep and yep. delatbabel, you might be a mind reader.

yamma

[Jimmer]

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.
 
There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
...

As Matrix, you must be nuts to give away an editor so players can make their own scenarios. You'd be better to sell the scenarios, and doubling your profits each time, but you have to fix the game first.

Actually, there are some business models built on this idea. Civilization, in fact, is the first entry. Since Civ II, it's had an editor that was publicly available. It has actually generated MORE business for them.

Guys like me don't want to take time to develop 10 different WWII scenarios. But, other people revel in it. I'm more than happy to pay for ones done well; saves me time. I also look at the ones done by amateurs, and some of them are pretty good.

However, your point does illustrate an issue: How does Matrix make money off of it? If the answer takes more than a second of pause to start spitting out, then Matrix should avoid it. But, this model CAN work.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.

There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.

I agree with much of this Jimmer. The Classic scenario would really only get us back to the std map, std counters. The naval changes here alone would be a big step back to the old EiA. This is not to fix anything but basically to fill the need of the folks that want the std map and counters (And there are alot of you)!

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.

There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.

I agree with much of this Jimmer. The Classic scenario would really only get us back to the std map, std counters. The naval changes here alone would be a big step back to the old EiA. This is not to fix anything but basically to fill the need of the folks that want the std map and counters (And there are alot of you)!

I really don't agree with Jimmer because there are a TON of things that can be changed with this game to get back to EiA without having to split up the Dip phase.

1. Combined Movement/PP
2. Naval Rules
3. Map/Counters/Fleets
4. Kingdom Creation done right
5. The list goes on, I don't have the time.

BUT, if you REALLY want to get back to Empires in Arms then I think we all know the answer: IP PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!

IP PLAY allows for every little step to be put back in without sacrificing any time. Imagine that with that great thing called the internet.......it's really amazing kids you should check it out.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Gotta be careful with this one. Many people think that "get back to EiA" is the way to "fix" this game. But, that can never happen. A large portion of EiA play is diplomatic, and is greatly dependent upon turn orders inside of the diplomacy phase. EiANW has one diplo phase for each player. So, it will absolutely NOT play like EiA. Putting all of the other features back in won't correct this, which is more fundamental than any other aspect other than combined movement. Unless players are willing to put up with six-part diplo phases, making the rest of the game look like EiA won't help.

There certainly are some things that could be good play changes. But, it would be unwise to think of EiA as a panacea.

I agree with much of this Jimmer. The Classic scenario would really only get us back to the std map, std counters. The naval changes here alone would be a big step back to the old EiA. This is not to fix anything but basically to fill the need of the folks that want the std map and counters (And there are alot of you)!

I really don't agree with Jimmer because there are a TON of things that can be changed with this game to get back to EiA without having to split up the Dip phase.

1. Combined Movement/PP
2. Naval Rules
3. Map/Counters/Fleets
4. Kingdom Creation done right
5. The list goes on, I don't have the time.

BUT, if you REALLY want to get back to Empires in Arms then I think we all know the answer: IP PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!

IP PLAY allows for every little step to be put back in without sacrificing any time. Imagine that with that great thing called the internet.......it's really amazing kids you should check it out.

LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.

1. Is the loan corps PP fixed? Did this get fixed in 1.03? What about combined movement (which is entirely different)?
2. Yes, evasion.
3. Glad we agree.
4. There is a thread in Tech Support that you should probably read. Go read that one and it explains the current problems with Kingdom Creation. Here it is: tm.asp?m=1898321
5. I don't. This is your job so that's cool, but I unfortunately, don't get paid to post on this forum (I wish!)

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.

1. Is the loan corps PP fixed? Did this get fixed in 1.03? What about combined movement (which is entirely different)?
2. Yes, evasion.
3. Glad we agree.
4. There is a thread in Tech Support that you should probably read. Go read that one and it explains the current problems with Kingdom Creation. Here it is: tm.asp?m=1898321
5. I don't. This is your job so that's cool, but I unfortunately, don't get paid to post on this forum (I wish!)

1. Loaned corps PP is fixed in 1.03. NOT combined movement.
2. Gotit!
3. Good!
4. Will do.
5. I don't get paid to post here as well! Looking for work?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

1. Loaned corps PP is fixed in 1.03. NOT combined movement.
2. Gotit!
3. Good!
4. Will do.
5. I don't get paid to post here as well! Looking for work?

1. Combined movement would be nice, but for PBEM I think it's not possible/probable.
2. Good deal.
3. Right on!
4. Good. I do have a question regarding this: Is it possible to remove a province from a Kingdom? If you read that thread I really had issue with the way the Polish creation automatically sucked up my home provinces.
5. Always looking for work. I'm a poor PhD student!

[Marshall Ellis]

There is another thread (???) where it was mentioned to me that there was an errata listing and that when an MP conquers a minor that could be a part of an exisiting kingdom then it must become a prt of the kingdom. Point being that the MP has no choice on what gets added.
 
 

[j-s]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis




I agree with much of this Jimmer. The Classic scenario would really only get us back to the std map, std counters. The naval changes here alone would be a big step back to the old EiA. This is not to fix anything but basically to fill the need of the folks that want the std map and counters (And there are alot of you)!

I really don't agree with Jimmer because there are a TON of things that can be changed with this game to get back to EiA without having to split up the Dip phase.

1. Combined Movement/PP
2. Naval Rules
3. Map/Counters/Fleets
4. Kingdom Creation done right
5. The list goes on, I don't have the time.

BUT, if you REALLY want to get back to Empires in Arms then I think we all know the answer: IP PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!

IP PLAY allows for every little step to be put back in without sacrificing any time. Imagine that with that great thing called the internet.......it's really amazing kids you should check it out.

LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.

2. Evasion and just one kind of naval unit, as in original game (30 ships in fleet)

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: j-s

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan




I really don't agree with Jimmer because there are a TON of things that can be changed with this game to get back to EiA without having to split up the Dip phase.

1. Combined Movement/PP
2. Naval Rules
3. Map/Counters/Fleets
4. Kingdom Creation done right
5. The list goes on, I don't have the time.

BUT, if you REALLY want to get back to Empires in Arms then I think we all know the answer: IP PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!

IP PLAY allows for every little step to be put back in without sacrificing any time. Imagine that with that great thing called the internet.......it's really amazing kids you should check it out.

LOL!

Dude, It's the 19th century! We don't need no stinking Internet! We just need more accurate muskets!

1. We already have combined PP?
2. What naval rules? (Evasion?)
3. Yep, Agreed.
4. What is wrong with the Kingdom creation now?
5. I do.

2. Evasion and just one kind of naval unit, as in original game (30 ships in fleet)

That would be the plan BUT evasion would also be available in EiANW.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

There is another thread (???) where it was mentioned to me that there was an errata listing and that when an MP conquers a minor that could be a part of an exisiting kingdom then it must become a prt of the kingdom. Point being that the MP has no choice on what gets added.

Actually, it was pointed out that this was NOT the case for a few kingdoms, such as Poland. For Poland, you should be able to pick and choose which provinces to add at creation time and which to add later.