Originally posted by jnier
The total number engaged at the Battle of Leipzig on both sides was about 550,000
What would you like to see in this game?
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
IrishGuardsOld
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:17 am
- Location: Owen Sound Canada
nay
-
IrishGuardsOld
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 7:17 am
- Location: Owen Sound Canada
Re: nay counting all corps they say 875,000 was the monstr of eur battle of nations
Originally posted by IrishGuards
-
Hoplosternum
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:39 pm
- Location: Romford, England
Boralinoi,
I have the opposite view to you
I would much prefer a game like EiA but not exactly EiA. I have played a few games of EiA and enjoyed them but I think the game had a few problems and also made some compromises because it was a boardgame. I have not played Empires in Harm so I do not know if those rules fixed all the problems.
IMHO the Victory conditions of surrenders had a lot of problems. Especially once we had played a couple of games and knew what was going on. An unconditional surrender could really obliterate you. Losing three provinces, some of your corps etc. really knocked you down. 'Shooting cripples' was rife as I recall as was everyone joining in to get in on the unconditional surrenders. This all led to people rarely fighting wars. People would just surrender immediately rather than lose half their army first and then surrender. It is very hard to do well as some powers like Prussia as any one of your three neighbours can knock you down unaided. So if you are doing well (even just by Prussian standards) you still have no real chance of winning long term. You could be forced to unconditionally surrender three times every eighteen months - thats Fiasco zone territory. I would much rather have a new surrender/ losing concequences system than this one.
Then there are the Corps and Leaders themselves. They are all the same size and statistics at 1805 as at 1814. As are the troops in them. A russian infantry is the same as a Russian infantry regardless of whether one is a new recruit with three months training or a veteran of years of hard campaigning and battles throughout Europe. For a boardgame changing any or all of this is hard and may need a lot of extra counters or book keeping but it would be easy for a computer.
I would also like to see some role for Corps commanders in battles rather than just the leader being important (plus having a Cavalry commander underling). That would probably require a slightly different combat system and possibly more Corps and leader counters. While I loved the combat chits and complex morale calculations combat in the game IME it was still hugely luck based. Because every attack had a counter (except Probe IIRC but that rarely led to big wins) the combat choice was usually a random choice between 2 or 3 chits depending on whether your leader had a reasonable Outflank option.
I also think that a game aimed mainly at a limited multiplayer audience (i.e. existing EiA players) is far too narrow to be a commercial success. I very much doubt that an AI can be written that will give exiting EiA players much of a game as they already know how to exploit the system. Where as a new game has more of a chance. Even if it is only filling in playing the weaker powers in a MP game.
ADG are the makers of World in Flames (WIF) a WW2 game. It's a great boardgame and they are turning it into a computer game on their own. Unfortunately they only have programmer - Chris Mancini (sp??) and so they are making a none AI version first. It will be an almost exact port of the boardgame apart from some Map changes. While I will certainly buy this game I cannot help thinking that by doing a direct port they are missing out on some things that that computers can do easily and boardgames cannot.
WIF has simple and largely unrealistic all or nothing supply. Limited build options because there are already thousands of pieces in the game and the game does not want the Commonwealth (CW) to be able to field as large a land army as the Germans etc. While this is good in many ways as it stops countries building things they were not good at, it does reduce flexibility. For example the CW can only build a certain number of CVs even if it does not build many new BBs due to the counter limits (i.e. the game does not just restrict the size and quality of the CW navy - which is good - it also says what it can be made up of regardless of the conditions the CW faces). There are no real research options in the game. Nor experience improvements to units. All these things would not add to the game as a boardgame. They would simply add far more counters and book keeping. But for a computer game most are easy and IMHO would add to the game.
I hope EiA will not go down the same route importing all the restrictions of a boardgame on to the computer.
I have the opposite view to you
I would much prefer a game like EiA but not exactly EiA. I have played a few games of EiA and enjoyed them but I think the game had a few problems and also made some compromises because it was a boardgame. I have not played Empires in Harm so I do not know if those rules fixed all the problems.IMHO the Victory conditions of surrenders had a lot of problems. Especially once we had played a couple of games and knew what was going on. An unconditional surrender could really obliterate you. Losing three provinces, some of your corps etc. really knocked you down. 'Shooting cripples' was rife as I recall as was everyone joining in to get in on the unconditional surrenders. This all led to people rarely fighting wars. People would just surrender immediately rather than lose half their army first and then surrender. It is very hard to do well as some powers like Prussia as any one of your three neighbours can knock you down unaided. So if you are doing well (even just by Prussian standards) you still have no real chance of winning long term. You could be forced to unconditionally surrender three times every eighteen months - thats Fiasco zone territory. I would much rather have a new surrender/ losing concequences system than this one.
Then there are the Corps and Leaders themselves. They are all the same size and statistics at 1805 as at 1814. As are the troops in them. A russian infantry is the same as a Russian infantry regardless of whether one is a new recruit with three months training or a veteran of years of hard campaigning and battles throughout Europe. For a boardgame changing any or all of this is hard and may need a lot of extra counters or book keeping but it would be easy for a computer.
I would also like to see some role for Corps commanders in battles rather than just the leader being important (plus having a Cavalry commander underling). That would probably require a slightly different combat system and possibly more Corps and leader counters. While I loved the combat chits and complex morale calculations combat in the game IME it was still hugely luck based. Because every attack had a counter (except Probe IIRC but that rarely led to big wins) the combat choice was usually a random choice between 2 or 3 chits depending on whether your leader had a reasonable Outflank option.
I also think that a game aimed mainly at a limited multiplayer audience (i.e. existing EiA players) is far too narrow to be a commercial success. I very much doubt that an AI can be written that will give exiting EiA players much of a game as they already know how to exploit the system. Where as a new game has more of a chance. Even if it is only filling in playing the weaker powers in a MP game.
ADG are the makers of World in Flames (WIF) a WW2 game. It's a great boardgame and they are turning it into a computer game on their own. Unfortunately they only have programmer - Chris Mancini (sp??) and so they are making a none AI version first. It will be an almost exact port of the boardgame apart from some Map changes. While I will certainly buy this game I cannot help thinking that by doing a direct port they are missing out on some things that that computers can do easily and boardgames cannot.
WIF has simple and largely unrealistic all or nothing supply. Limited build options because there are already thousands of pieces in the game and the game does not want the Commonwealth (CW) to be able to field as large a land army as the Germans etc. While this is good in many ways as it stops countries building things they were not good at, it does reduce flexibility. For example the CW can only build a certain number of CVs even if it does not build many new BBs due to the counter limits (i.e. the game does not just restrict the size and quality of the CW navy - which is good - it also says what it can be made up of regardless of the conditions the CW faces). There are no real research options in the game. Nor experience improvements to units. All these things would not add to the game as a boardgame. They would simply add far more counters and book keeping. But for a computer game most are easy and IMHO would add to the game.
I hope EiA will not go down the same route importing all the restrictions of a boardgame on to the computer.
Allies vs Belphegor Jul 43 2.5:2.5 in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
-
Uncle Toby
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:56 pm
The Splits
The way I see it a game, paper or computer can best be understood as a group of interrelated mechanisms. These mechanisms are like chapters in a book or subroutines in a computer program. In EiA examples would be the tactical battle resolution or the peace resolution system.
Though a game can be educational, it is primarily entertainment and with entertainment we enter the realm of psychology where there is more art than science. There are many psychological reasons why people play games and there are different kinds of games to suit all those reasons as well as hybrids. EiA is one such hybrid, it is a strategy/historical recreation game. Strategy games are played to compete and win. Recreations are played for the pleasure of imaginative association, the same reason you’d watch an action film. These are the two poles pulling on EiA.
Keeping the goals in mind is essential to making a success of a game design. The mechanisms must be chosen to best achieve the goals, ideally they should reinforce each other in both goals, they certainly should not contradict. Each mechanism to be included should be judged according to how well it fills these criteria.
The potential for conflict in a hybrid strategy/recreation game is mainly in the area of busywork added for historical color, which slows the game and burdens the player while adding nothing to strategy, and in compromises to conform to historical events which unbalance or reduce the quality of strategic decision-making.
EiA as a paper game was very good but still had lots of problem mechanisms, some because they were pushing the limits of paper games, some from bad compromises that are hard to avoid in a hybrid.
Now, at last, we come to the point of my long-winded dissertation. Just as there is a split between those who want a computer version of the paper game and those who want a computer game in the spirit of the paper game, there is a split on the fundamental question of whether you want EiA to be a strategy game with as much historical recreation as doesn’t get in the way, or you want a historical recreation with as much strategy as will fit in the interstices. The goals are not very compatible.
I’m for a computer game in the spirit and a strategy game but this supposes that the designers can improve the game for the computer version. I have a shelf full of computer games which are absolute rubbish, I have played every multi-player strategy game for the computer that has come out in the last ten years and of a hundred games I could count the ones that weren’t carelessly designed junk without taking off my shoes. I’ll wait and see before I buy.
Though a game can be educational, it is primarily entertainment and with entertainment we enter the realm of psychology where there is more art than science. There are many psychological reasons why people play games and there are different kinds of games to suit all those reasons as well as hybrids. EiA is one such hybrid, it is a strategy/historical recreation game. Strategy games are played to compete and win. Recreations are played for the pleasure of imaginative association, the same reason you’d watch an action film. These are the two poles pulling on EiA.
Keeping the goals in mind is essential to making a success of a game design. The mechanisms must be chosen to best achieve the goals, ideally they should reinforce each other in both goals, they certainly should not contradict. Each mechanism to be included should be judged according to how well it fills these criteria.
The potential for conflict in a hybrid strategy/recreation game is mainly in the area of busywork added for historical color, which slows the game and burdens the player while adding nothing to strategy, and in compromises to conform to historical events which unbalance or reduce the quality of strategic decision-making.
EiA as a paper game was very good but still had lots of problem mechanisms, some because they were pushing the limits of paper games, some from bad compromises that are hard to avoid in a hybrid.
Now, at last, we come to the point of my long-winded dissertation. Just as there is a split between those who want a computer version of the paper game and those who want a computer game in the spirit of the paper game, there is a split on the fundamental question of whether you want EiA to be a strategy game with as much historical recreation as doesn’t get in the way, or you want a historical recreation with as much strategy as will fit in the interstices. The goals are not very compatible.
I’m for a computer game in the spirit and a strategy game but this supposes that the designers can improve the game for the computer version. I have a shelf full of computer games which are absolute rubbish, I have played every multi-player strategy game for the computer that has come out in the last ten years and of a hundred games I could count the ones that weren’t carelessly designed junk without taking off my shoes. I’ll wait and see before I buy.
I would like to see the Naval combat options expanded.
Something along the lines of Doctrine when combat is initiated.
combat options like Boarding and capture, Hot-shot, De-masting, Long range broadside, Cannonade, Flee, Line of battle, Engage.
The Land system has both attacker and defender pick an offensive tactic and defensive counter. It would be nice to have that similar system attached to Naval combat.
As well as Naval Leaders for all sides.
Something along the lines of Doctrine when combat is initiated.
combat options like Boarding and capture, Hot-shot, De-masting, Long range broadside, Cannonade, Flee, Line of battle, Engage.
The Land system has both attacker and defender pick an offensive tactic and defensive counter. It would be nice to have that similar system attached to Naval combat.
As well as Naval Leaders for all sides.
Courage is fear singing a hymn arranged for four voices.
Fear passes. But leaves a record of its stay.
You want to be brave. You also want to be.
But your greatest danger is from your fellow human beings.
Fear passes. But leaves a record of its stay.
You want to be brave. You also want to be.
But your greatest danger is from your fellow human beings.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
I agree with those who want to see creativity go into this design. The interest for me in the first place came from the idea that someone was going to tackle strategic Napoleonic era gaming from a fresh perspective. I harbored hopes that innovative approaches would be taken to applying the best features of computer capabilities to one of my favorite game subjects.
While I am an inveterate player of EiA, I am worried about the direction this project may be headed. I have never seen EiA as a good candidate for direct translation into a computer game. I am acutely aware of its faults and limitations, most of which have been detailed in this thread.
I will, of course, buy this game. I just want the designers to approach it as a new design, not a slavish attempt at re-creation in bits and bytes of what was good, but not perfect, in cardboard and paper.
While I am an inveterate player of EiA, I am worried about the direction this project may be headed. I have never seen EiA as a good candidate for direct translation into a computer game. I am acutely aware of its faults and limitations, most of which have been detailed in this thread.
I will, of course, buy this game. I just want the designers to approach it as a new design, not a slavish attempt at re-creation in bits and bytes of what was good, but not perfect, in cardboard and paper.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
I'm with you Pasternaski.
I want something "Better than EIA". Without the limits of a boardgame, the possibilities for a much better game are definitely there. The concepts and ideas of EiA are great, but the mechanics and detail can be greatly improved to provide a much better game.
And I think that Matrix can make it happen.
I want something "Better than EIA". Without the limits of a boardgame, the possibilities for a much better game are definitely there. The concepts and ideas of EiA are great, but the mechanics and detail can be greatly improved to provide a much better game.
And I think that Matrix can make it happen.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
You said it denisohn.Originally posted by denisonh
I'm with you Pasternaski.
I want something "Better than EIA". Without the limits of a boardgame, the possibilities for a much better game are definitely there. The concepts and ideas of EiA are great, but the mechanics and detail can be greatly improved to provide a much better game.
And I think that Matrix can make it happen.
It doesn't matter how much of an old salt one is at EiA, it seems like simultaneous movement will make newbies (to a certain degree) out of everyone.
Vive l'Empereur!
What I find very interesting is how two or more people can see the same thing and draw totally opposite conclusions.
Regarding movment:
**Why would simultaneous movement be any faster? If anything it would require either *everyone* to be on line at the exact same time, or the game would be an an impasse until everyone sent their orders in.
That is exactly why I think simultaneous movement would be faster! Unless everyone can be on line at the same time, you are stuck doing one player's turn per day (assuming one "input" per day) or as you say, an impasse.
For simultaneous movement, each player would submit their turn, after which all turns would be processed as one batch, much akin to the way Stars! plays.
Turning to whether the game should be strict EiA or more, it seems to me there is more agreement than disagreement. From what I gather, there will be a "basic" game which is EiA. From that, there will be a series of options, allowing players to pick and choose how much they want to add or vary from standard EiA.
That being said, and as much as I love EiA, I think to limit the new game to strick EiA would be a lost opportunity. As a starting point, virtually all the new rules from EiH should be optional, as well as expanding in other areas which were simply not practical for a board game.
For example, there is no need to keep the scale as one factor per 1000 to 3000 men. A computer could easily keep track of smaller numbers, and reducing the scale to 100 men per factor or even less is a possiblilty.
Likewise, better supply rules could be incorporated, the actual cost of supply be linked to the number of factors instead of the number of corps.
I would ****strongly**** suggest that the game have some means to allow players to modify game play. One shortcoming of computer games is, until recently, the lack of such ability. I will address this issue in a separate message, as my commanding officers are now calling for my presence. (Capts. 1 and 2, age 15 mos. )
Regarding movment:
**Why would simultaneous movement be any faster? If anything it would require either *everyone* to be on line at the exact same time, or the game would be an an impasse until everyone sent their orders in.
That is exactly why I think simultaneous movement would be faster! Unless everyone can be on line at the same time, you are stuck doing one player's turn per day (assuming one "input" per day) or as you say, an impasse.
For simultaneous movement, each player would submit their turn, after which all turns would be processed as one batch, much akin to the way Stars! plays.
Turning to whether the game should be strict EiA or more, it seems to me there is more agreement than disagreement. From what I gather, there will be a "basic" game which is EiA. From that, there will be a series of options, allowing players to pick and choose how much they want to add or vary from standard EiA.
That being said, and as much as I love EiA, I think to limit the new game to strick EiA would be a lost opportunity. As a starting point, virtually all the new rules from EiH should be optional, as well as expanding in other areas which were simply not practical for a board game.
For example, there is no need to keep the scale as one factor per 1000 to 3000 men. A computer could easily keep track of smaller numbers, and reducing the scale to 100 men per factor or even less is a possiblilty.
Likewise, better supply rules could be incorporated, the actual cost of supply be linked to the number of factors instead of the number of corps.
I would ****strongly**** suggest that the game have some means to allow players to modify game play. One shortcoming of computer games is, until recently, the lack of such ability. I will address this issue in a separate message, as my commanding officers are now calling for my presence. (Capts. 1 and 2, age 15 mos.
)Repo Man
Hi,
In reply...
"That is exactly why I think simultaneous movement would be faster! Unless everyone can be on line at the same time, you are stuck doing one player's turn per day (assuming one "input" per day) or as you say, an impasse. "
**How do you propose to run a simultaneous game accross different time zones then? Even a America\Europe game would cross 4 time zones minimum, probably closer to 6-8. I think requiring every player to be on-line at the same time in order to finish a single turn is highly ineffective. All it would take is one person to not show up and all 6 remaining players are screwed. At least in a sequencial move all the players that moved before the slowpoke got their turns in and completed.
Now, on the other hand LAN games could easily be ran simultaneously since all the players are probably all together.
****All it would take to satisfy everyone is make simultaneous movement a server option, and allow people to run passworded 24/7 game servers****
The biggest grievance I have about simultaneous movement, however, isn't the speed in which turns are able to be completed but rather the cheats I can see coming out from it- particullarly server side. All a cheating admin needs is a simple program that would allow him to see everyone else's move on the server before he sends in his own. In the board game, France somewhat has this ability by choosing to move last. However, it is offset a bit due to the fact that all the moves on the board are public. If a PC admin can see moves that nobody else can....
In reply...
"That is exactly why I think simultaneous movement would be faster! Unless everyone can be on line at the same time, you are stuck doing one player's turn per day (assuming one "input" per day) or as you say, an impasse. "
**How do you propose to run a simultaneous game accross different time zones then? Even a America\Europe game would cross 4 time zones minimum, probably closer to 6-8. I think requiring every player to be on-line at the same time in order to finish a single turn is highly ineffective. All it would take is one person to not show up and all 6 remaining players are screwed. At least in a sequencial move all the players that moved before the slowpoke got their turns in and completed.
Now, on the other hand LAN games could easily be ran simultaneously since all the players are probably all together.
****All it would take to satisfy everyone is make simultaneous movement a server option, and allow people to run passworded 24/7 game servers****
The biggest grievance I have about simultaneous movement, however, isn't the speed in which turns are able to be completed but rather the cheats I can see coming out from it- particullarly server side. All a cheating admin needs is a simple program that would allow him to see everyone else's move on the server before he sends in his own. In the board game, France somewhat has this ability by choosing to move last. However, it is offset a bit due to the fact that all the moves on the board are public. If a PC admin can see moves that nobody else can....
Hmmm, it seems there is more a problem wth semantics than anything else. Let me clarify what *I* meant by simultaneous movement. By it, I mean each player completes his turn on their own computer. At the completion of the turn, it is sent to the host of the game. Once the host has the all the turn submissions, or at a set time per day, the host generates a new turn, under which each player's orders are processed simultaneously. Again, I am using a model much like Stars! 2.X.Originally posted by JParton
**How do you propose to run a simultaneous game accross different time zones then? Even a America\Europe game would cross 4 time zones minimum, probably closer to 6-8. I think requiring every player to be on-line at the same time in order to finish a single turn is highly ineffective. All it would take is one person to not show up and all 6 remaining players are screwed. At least in a sequencial move all the players that moved before the slowpoke got their turns in and completed.
Now, on the other hand LAN games could easily be ran simultaneously since all the players are probably all together.
****All it would take to satisfy everyone is make simultaneous movement a server option, and allow people to run passworded 24/7 game servers****
The biggest grievance I have about simultaneous movement, however, isn't the speed in which turns are able to be completed but rather the cheats I can see coming out from it- particullarly server side. ....
My own desire for this model is my own time constraints. While I would love to be able to join a LAN game, it 'ain't happening in the near future. Solo play, or a Stars! based multiplayer are the only two viable options for me right now, and I suspect for most players over 30. Thats not to say LAN play should not be an option.
Cheating in these types of games is certainly an issue, although back when I played Stars!, it was not as widespread as it might appear, although host cheating did certainly exist. Perhaps the ability to set up an auto host could help reduce the cheat factor.
Repo Man
A good question
Originally posted by someone
**How do you propose to run a simultaneous game accross different time zones then? Even a America\Europe game would cross 4 time zones minimum, probably closer to 6-8.
I regularly play Combat Mission with my best friend who is stationed in Mannheim, Germany. I live in California. We don't use any specially dedicated gaming servers. Never have and I don't see any reason to ever use them. The need for those is a myth, I believe. I just start up the game, with my internet connection kept current, and input my buddy's TCP/IP address and voila, --we're gaming. Nothing could be more simple.
He may be eating dinner while I'm eating breakfast, but we're have great fun. You will too. EiA will work fine with simultaneous movement.
Vive l'Empereur!
well, seeing as you asked . . .
A bunch of things come to mind, but here's what's at the top of the list:
Can you keep it interesting for 7 players with different skill and experience levels? What happens when it's 1807 and the RN is wiped out, or France has already unconditionally surrendered twice? Sure, there might be a tight race between Spain and Russia and Austria for first, but all the suspense is gone for someone, and the game still has 80 turns to go.
Some possible solutions: (a) automatic victory conditions: make it possible for a country to achieve automatic victory if they're running away with things. Why doesn't EiA have automatic victory conditions? (b) [I'm not sure about this one] divide the game victory conditions into two tracks in 1812. The top three players in January 1812 are now competing with each other for 1st, and the bottom four get a clean slate and play aginst each other in a consolation bracket. (c) Point values went up in later rounds of Family Feud, they go up in later rounds of Jeopardy, and they do that for a reason: the viewing audience likes a game with suspense. Players do too. Double all VPs earned in 1812-1814, and triple VPs earned in 1815. This game mechanic would make an 1812 invasion of Russia make sense as a big gamble that could do it, and make Napoleon's 1815 campaign an interesting gamble - "The final jeopardy category today is 'Waterloo', how much do you want to wager?"
Next on the list is a surrender rule that could explain the surrenders at Ulm, Bailen and Lisbon, none of which can be explained under the EiA rules.
Jon
Can you keep it interesting for 7 players with different skill and experience levels? What happens when it's 1807 and the RN is wiped out, or France has already unconditionally surrendered twice? Sure, there might be a tight race between Spain and Russia and Austria for first, but all the suspense is gone for someone, and the game still has 80 turns to go.
Some possible solutions: (a) automatic victory conditions: make it possible for a country to achieve automatic victory if they're running away with things. Why doesn't EiA have automatic victory conditions? (b) [I'm not sure about this one] divide the game victory conditions into two tracks in 1812. The top three players in January 1812 are now competing with each other for 1st, and the bottom four get a clean slate and play aginst each other in a consolation bracket. (c) Point values went up in later rounds of Family Feud, they go up in later rounds of Jeopardy, and they do that for a reason: the viewing audience likes a game with suspense. Players do too. Double all VPs earned in 1812-1814, and triple VPs earned in 1815. This game mechanic would make an 1812 invasion of Russia make sense as a big gamble that could do it, and make Napoleon's 1815 campaign an interesting gamble - "The final jeopardy category today is 'Waterloo', how much do you want to wager?"
Next on the list is a surrender rule that could explain the surrenders at Ulm, Bailen and Lisbon, none of which can be explained under the EiA rules.
Jon
Repo, I like you idea about being able to send your order in and having the server automatically update everything after a set time. That would be a good way to counter slow players. Snooze and lose lol. As a bonus, it seems to me that it could easily be ported to handling a standard PBEM EiA game as well, since the server would aready have program code to process turns in set (hopefully adjustable) time periods. Same deal as simultaneous moves..those that don't send their turn in on time get passed over.
Tondu, I think it is cool that you and one other person from across the world can connect and play, but I hope that you realize you are the exception rather than the rule. Bring 5 more people in the equation and the problems increase dramatically. Repo's idea would prevent forcing everyone to connect at the exact same time, so it wouldn't matter if they lived across the street or across the globe.
Tondu, I think it is cool that you and one other person from across the world can connect and play, but I hope that you realize you are the exception rather than the rule. Bring 5 more people in the equation and the problems increase dramatically. Repo's idea would prevent forcing everyone to connect at the exact same time, so it wouldn't matter if they lived across the street or across the globe.
Assault,
To be honest, I can see your situations ending the same as a board game. The losers would bail and the game would start over lol.
I like the increased VP idea as an option, especially since in many FtF games I have played most everyone has an idea by 1813 who stands to win, and if Eco manipulation is in play it can reinforce that situation. Having VPs worth more later in game IMO would absolutely create situations where players would go for the massive "end-game" strategy- especially if the game is close. Hell, I would! Waterloo here I come lol
I wonder what would happen if only the bottom 4 players from 1813 on got the higher VPs...
To be honest, I can see your situations ending the same as a board game. The losers would bail and the game would start over lol.
I like the increased VP idea as an option, especially since in many FtF games I have played most everyone has an idea by 1813 who stands to win, and if Eco manipulation is in play it can reinforce that situation. Having VPs worth more later in game IMO would absolutely create situations where players would go for the massive "end-game" strategy- especially if the game is close. Hell, I would! Waterloo here I come lol
I wonder what would happen if only the bottom 4 players from 1813 on got the higher VPs...