I hope you could do something with that because it will be hard to find 7 guys every time you wont to start a new game. Most of the time we play 1 on 1. I really would like to see the AI play all the other country.
May Update
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
mariovalleemtl
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Montreal
- Contact:
!!!
- PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations at this time.
I hope you could do something with that because it will be hard to find 7 guys every time you wont to start a new game. Most of the time we play 1 on 1. I really would like to see the AI play all the other country.
I hope you could do something with that because it will be hard to find 7 guys every time you wont to start a new game. Most of the time we play 1 on 1. I really would like to see the AI play all the other country.
Thanks for the update, Marshall.
In my opinion, it would be best for the game to have Naval Interception, New Political Combinations and Cossacks included in the first release.
-Naval Interception is what keeps Britain alive.
-New Political Combinations are some of the goals you have when playing the game (Turkey wants the Ottoman Empire, France wants the Confederation of the Rhine and Prussia or Russia both want Poland...). Without these combinations, you'll lack some of the finesse of the game.
-Cossacks... well, everyone hates Cossacks. The sneaky bastards always get into your way and sneak up to your depots. It makes invading Russia very challenging!
On a side note, are Spanish guerillas included in the game?
Jeroen.
In my opinion, it would be best for the game to have Naval Interception, New Political Combinations and Cossacks included in the first release.
-Naval Interception is what keeps Britain alive.
-New Political Combinations are some of the goals you have when playing the game (Turkey wants the Ottoman Empire, France wants the Confederation of the Rhine and Prussia or Russia both want Poland...). Without these combinations, you'll lack some of the finesse of the game.
-Cossacks... well, everyone hates Cossacks. The sneaky bastards always get into your way and sneak up to your depots. It makes invading Russia very challenging!
On a side note, are Spanish guerillas included in the game?
Jeroen.
Re: May Update
This is sounding very cool
Sounds great
Seems OK, as people should be able to bid offline. Would be nice to hardcode in 'typical' bids for now to simplify it for newbies.Originally posted by Marshall
Ellis
There is no bidding process for nation selection. Roll the dice or bribe your friend but in this first release there will be no nation bids.
I echo everyone else. Something is needed or Britain becomes unplayable
Naval interception is not in the game yet. We're thinking of having some type of "patrol" command for fleets to enable them to auto-intercept but the interaction that is required for a player to announce he or she is intercepting could be difficult (Especially for PBEM).
Transport/warship seperation is a very good idea that I like. Not sure I see the point in seperating out small ships. Will have to see.Naval units are a bit different as well. We have added a few units (Again EIH like). We have Heavy Ships, Light Ships and Transports. Heavy Ships are the big ships of the line. Light Ships have a special ability to perform piracy / anti piracy missions and Transports, obviously transport units (2 Infantry factors / 1 Cavalry factor per ship). Remember this is FACTORS and not CORPS units.
Tough for when people drop but manageable I suppose. Would it be possible for a user to run the game in SP and then make the moves the AI made? Still requires a GM but may be a work around.PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations at this time. We will add this on a later release.
no biggieKingdoms are not in the current release (New political combinations).
I don't see that lack of Freikorps hurts Austria or Prussia too much. Cossacks is too bad but...Freikorps and Cossacks are not in the current game either. The original design did not have these units in the game but tell me your thoughts here...
Don't know enough about it but sounds cool.Minor diplomacy is similar to the EIH game. Minor control (For DOWs) is given to the major nation that has some type of relationship (Influenced or Ally) with the minor. All other minors will be controlled by the computer.
What are your thoughts on a dynamic supply cost indicator visible during land move? This will constantly update as you move your units.
What about a "all forage" button which when clicked would automatically attempt to have all of your units forage?
Sounds great
-
Ancient One
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
How is the Ottoman Empire a "New Political Combination"? I thought this was supposed to be a historical game, the Ottoman Empire has existed for centuries prior to the Napoleonic Wars.Originally posted by Wynter
-New Political Combinations are some of the goals you have when playing the game (Turkey wants the Ottoman Empire, France wants the Confederation of the Rhine and Prussia or Russia both want Poland...). Without these combinations, you'll lack some of the finesse of the game.
Originally posted by Zagys
How is the Ottoman Empire a "New Political Combination"? I thought this was supposed to be a historical game, the Ottoman Empire has existed for centuries prior to the Napoleonic Wars.
In Empires in Arms 'The Ottoman Empire' is composed of the North African territories while, what was historicaly called 'Ottoman Empire', is called 'Turkey'.
In Empires in Harm this is changed: The Ottoman Empire is the player nation, while the North African territories can be formed into The Barbary Coast and The Mameluks, which is historicaly correct.
Bear in mind that while Empires in Arms has an historical flavour, it is by no means historicaly correct.
Jeroen.
My take regarding the "May Issues":
Like others, I think this has to be included. If a patrol function is used, I would also like an option for doing it regularly for those so disposed.Naval interception is not in the game yet. We're thinking of having some type of "patrol" command for fleets to enable them to auto-intercept but the interaction that is required for a player to announce he or she is intercepting could be difficult (Especially for PBEM).
Yep, nicely done.Naval units are a bit different as well. We have added a few units (Again EIH like).
Ouch, ouch, ouch. Most likely, I would be playing one on one PBEM. Not having a programmed opponent for nonhuman players would seriously reduce game interest. Dunno if "early release" w/o this component would be worth it then. "Later release" WITH this feature would be my preference.PBEM does NOT have computer controlled major nations at this time. We will add this on a later release.
Hmm, not sure why. Seems these were important in the game.Kingdoms are not in the current release (New political combinations).
By "original design" you MUST be going back before the AH version, b/c AH's does have these units. Again, think these are imperative for the "right" feel of the game, particularly 1812 and beyond. (And if you can implement cossacks, then freikorps would essentially be the same.)Freikorps and Cossacks are not in the current game either. The original design did not have these units in the game but tell me your thoughts here...
Fine. NP.Minor diplomacy is similar to the EIH game. Minor control (For DOWs) is given to the major nation that has some type of relationship (Influenced or Ally) with the minor. All other minors will be controlled by the computer.
Fantastic!What are your thoughts on a dynamic supply cost indicator visible during land move? This will constantly update as you move your units.
Ditto; except with the proviso that it only applies to units not already moved w/o forage.What about a "all forage" button which when clicked would automatically attempt to have all of your units forage?
Hi all,
No bidding will not be a big problem, if the VP levels are ajusted accordingly. On the other hand I must say that in all my games it was a nice and exciting prelude to the actual game. If you substitute the bidding with a single dice roll, with my luck, I will allways end up playing Prussia.
Some kind of naval interception is a must. Britain falls without it. It has to be there, even if it means dividing the turn in phases.
Kingdoms were allways important, both for diplomacy as well as increasing your army with additional counters. Some are prerequisites for declaring major power status!
As for all EiH options I would say, the more you include the better.
No bidding will not be a big problem, if the VP levels are ajusted accordingly. On the other hand I must say that in all my games it was a nice and exciting prelude to the actual game. If you substitute the bidding with a single dice roll, with my luck, I will allways end up playing Prussia.
Some kind of naval interception is a must. Britain falls without it. It has to be there, even if it means dividing the turn in phases.
Kingdoms were allways important, both for diplomacy as well as increasing your army with additional counters. Some are prerequisites for declaring major power status!
As for all EiH options I would say, the more you include the better.
No bidding will not be a big problem, if the VP levels are ajusted accordingly. On the other hand I must say that in all my games it was a nice and exciting prelude to the actual game. If you substitute the bidding with a single dice roll, with my luck, I will allways end up playing Prussia.
I'm not sure you can adjust the VPs accurately to reflect different player skills and preferences. With a bidding system this is mainly overcome (there are still those guys who will bail if they don't get their way but this should weed them out early)
On bidding:
My experience is that you have a more stable gaming group if, before you start playing, you divide the countries by mutual agreement. That way each player can have the country where he feels himself most comfortable with. If a player gets 'stuck' with a certain country he absolutely dislikes because of the bidding, chances are that he will quit at the first possible moment.
Of course, this dividing of countries can take some time as some nations are favoured by all players and some find no appeal.
In our gaming group nobody wanted to play France (strange isn't it) and there were two candidates for Britain. In the end, one of those two agreed to play France and in 1809 he forced Britain to surrender (with a little help of his allies Turkey (which is me) and Spain).
Hmmm, what was the topic again...:rolleyes: oh, yeah, bidding... Bidding is in my opinion not something the gamedevelopers should focus on, it is not important.
Jeroen.
My experience is that you have a more stable gaming group if, before you start playing, you divide the countries by mutual agreement. That way each player can have the country where he feels himself most comfortable with. If a player gets 'stuck' with a certain country he absolutely dislikes because of the bidding, chances are that he will quit at the first possible moment.
Of course, this dividing of countries can take some time as some nations are favoured by all players and some find no appeal.
In our gaming group nobody wanted to play France (strange isn't it) and there were two candidates for Britain. In the end, one of those two agreed to play France and in 1809 he forced Britain to surrender (with a little help of his allies Turkey (which is me) and Spain).
Hmmm, what was the topic again...:rolleyes: oh, yeah, bidding... Bidding is in my opinion not something the gamedevelopers should focus on, it is not important.
Jeroen.
Originally posted by Yohan
I'm not sure you can adjust the VPs accurately to reflect different player skills and preferences. With a bidding system this is mainly overcome (there are still those guys who will bail if they don't get their way but this should weed them out early)
I agree, my point was if it will not be included, VP levels should be higher according to the average (reasonable bids). If I'm not mistaken the original board version manual has some values... or was it in EiH... it's been a while...
Originally posted by Wynter
On bidding:
My experience is that you have a more stable gaming group if, before you start playing, you divide the countries by mutual agreement. That way each player can have the country where he feels himself most comfortable with. If a player gets 'stuck' with a certain country he absolutely dislikes because of the bidding, chances are that he will quit at the first possible moment.
Of course, this dividing of countries can take some time as some nations are favoured by all players and some find no appeal.
In our gaming group nobody wanted to play France (strange isn't it) and there were two candidates for Britain. In the end, one of those two agreed to play France and in 1809 he forced Britain to surrender (with a little help of his allies Turkey (which is me) and Spain).
Hmmm, what was the topic again...:rolleyes: oh, yeah, bidding... Bidding is in my opinion not something the gamedevelopers should focus on, it is not important.
Jeroen.
Agree 100%. I have the same experience as you in this mather.
Except the surrender of Britain...
In our darkest hours all the shades are gray
-
mmurray821
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:57 am
Echoing a lot of what's already been said, but just to add my voice:
Bidding:
On a scale like the grand campaign, bidding is probably completely unnecessary. Players who are merely keeping track of VP's have ample time to adapt their strategy to take down the leader (France?) if they want. I find it best when the players commit to a power they want to play, rather than have a power they can win with, but don't enjoy playing.
Naval Intercept:
If naval is separated out from land combat, and Britain retains the "move when I want to" power, this isn't quite as important. I don't know if going to be the case, though, and if not, Britain needs some way of tracking down errant ships.
Naval/Units:
I'd have to see it in order to judge, but my first reaction is it might needlessly complicate. EiA is primarily a land war/diplomatic struggle, and I believe there can be such a thing as "too much realism."
Computer Controlled majors:
Most desirable, and likely hardest to implement. Any AI is going to be inferior to a player, so it's presence isn't going to be a panacea, but like others have said- it'd be a good patch for the inevitability of a player bailing out mid-game.
Kingdoms:
If this never enterred, it'd be missed, but probably wouldn't change the flow of the game much. I'd miss the routine of dissecting Poland, and then reconstituting it.
Freikorps/Cossacks:
Freikorps- largely pointless. Cossacks were a way for Russia to save money while threatening supply lines. Could be implemented artificially through other means.
Minor Diplomacy:
Fantastic to see EiH rules here! EiA was, IMO, too limited with regards to minors.
Dynamic Supply/ All forage:
Both sound uber-cool! Lemme see! Lemme see!!!
Eager to get my hands on it, whatever its limitations...
Bidding:
On a scale like the grand campaign, bidding is probably completely unnecessary. Players who are merely keeping track of VP's have ample time to adapt their strategy to take down the leader (France?) if they want. I find it best when the players commit to a power they want to play, rather than have a power they can win with, but don't enjoy playing.
Naval Intercept:
If naval is separated out from land combat, and Britain retains the "move when I want to" power, this isn't quite as important. I don't know if going to be the case, though, and if not, Britain needs some way of tracking down errant ships.
Naval/Units:
I'd have to see it in order to judge, but my first reaction is it might needlessly complicate. EiA is primarily a land war/diplomatic struggle, and I believe there can be such a thing as "too much realism."
Computer Controlled majors:
Most desirable, and likely hardest to implement. Any AI is going to be inferior to a player, so it's presence isn't going to be a panacea, but like others have said- it'd be a good patch for the inevitability of a player bailing out mid-game.
Kingdoms:
If this never enterred, it'd be missed, but probably wouldn't change the flow of the game much. I'd miss the routine of dissecting Poland, and then reconstituting it.
Freikorps/Cossacks:
Freikorps- largely pointless. Cossacks were a way for Russia to save money while threatening supply lines. Could be implemented artificially through other means.
Minor Diplomacy:
Fantastic to see EiH rules here! EiA was, IMO, too limited with regards to minors.
Dynamic Supply/ All forage:
Both sound uber-cool! Lemme see! Lemme see!!!
Eager to get my hands on it, whatever its limitations...
I certainly dont agree.
On Bidding:
If you dont think you have a chance of winning, then you get 'ahistorical' "kamikaze' play. I like a chance to win, more than I like being a 'spoiler'.
I dont like games where it is 'we must stop France or we will all die' The predetermines what is going to happen.
Kingdoms are crucial if you intend to actually invade England.
You NEED those spare fleets, just as badly as he needs to sink them.
The absence of Freikorp and Cossaks CRIPPLES both
Russia and Prussia. It makes invading either one, MUCH easier.
On Bidding:
If you dont think you have a chance of winning, then you get 'ahistorical' "kamikaze' play. I like a chance to win, more than I like being a 'spoiler'.
I dont like games where it is 'we must stop France or we will all die' The predetermines what is going to happen.
Kingdoms are crucial if you intend to actually invade England.
You NEED those spare fleets, just as badly as he needs to sink them.
The absence of Freikorp and Cossaks CRIPPLES both
Russia and Prussia. It makes invading either one, MUCH easier.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
So the Kingdom of Two Sicilies and the Kingdom of Sweden are out, too? What about Denmark (seeing as how it has two provinces as well)?
Only the Kingdom of Northern Italy has an extra fleet apart from that.
I would think that Sweden and Sicily still have fleets in the game, so we're only talking about the Venetian fleet (which comes later anyway).
As for bidding, I agree with Khi. I have been in involved in a number of games where a bid would have done little to change the outcome in a material way (or at least, we could have adapted with our without).
As for the Freikorps -- what?? I can't recall a game where they made a difference. Cossacks -- YES, I agree 110%. Especially when you invade Russia and double the output of cossacks. 6 cavalry factors that can run all over the map!!
Reknoy
Only the Kingdom of Northern Italy has an extra fleet apart from that.
I would think that Sweden and Sicily still have fleets in the game, so we're only talking about the Venetian fleet (which comes later anyway).
As for bidding, I agree with Khi. I have been in involved in a number of games where a bid would have done little to change the outcome in a material way (or at least, we could have adapted with our without).
As for the Freikorps -- what?? I can't recall a game where they made a difference. Cossacks -- YES, I agree 110%. Especially when you invade Russia and double the output of cossacks. 6 cavalry factors that can run all over the map!!
Reknoy
Originally posted by Reknoy
So the Kingdom of Two Sicilies and the Kingdom of Sweden are out, too? What about Denmark (seeing as how it has two provinces as well)?
Only the Kingdom of Northern Italy has an extra fleet apart from that.
I would think that Sweden and Sicily still have fleets in the game, so we're only talking about the Venetian fleet (which comes later anyway).
As for bidding, I agree with Khi. I have been in involved in a number of games where a bid would have done little to change the outcome in a material way (or at least, we could have adapted with our without).
As for the Freikorps -- what?? I can't recall a game where they made a difference. Cossacks -- YES, I agree 110%. Especially when you invade Russia and double the output of cossacks. 6 cavalry factors that can run all over the map!!
Reknoy
Portugal
Sicily
Venice
Denmark
Holland
Sweden
They all have fleets and even ONE ship can carry an entire corp.
You can swamp the English defence if you have them all.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Chiteng: I just re-read the original post. I may be wrong, but I think we're only talking about the New Political Combinations.
Kingdom of Italy;
Kingdom of Bavaria;
Ottoman Empire;
Kingdom of Westphalia;
Confederation of the Rhine; and
...I'm forgetting.
Anyway -- only one of these (Italy) has a fleet counter that would not be present if the "Kingdom" options were not included.
IMO, the Ottoman is the real bummer of the group. The rest are not as critical in any given game.
All free states like Portugal et al can still field fleets (I would have to imagine).
Further, depending on the rules a "fleet" may not be able to transport a corps of any size. There are different options that may be employed.
Reknoy
Kingdom of Italy;
Kingdom of Bavaria;
Ottoman Empire;
Kingdom of Westphalia;
Confederation of the Rhine; and
...I'm forgetting.
Anyway -- only one of these (Italy) has a fleet counter that would not be present if the "Kingdom" options were not included.
IMO, the Ottoman is the real bummer of the group. The rest are not as critical in any given game.
All free states like Portugal et al can still field fleets (I would have to imagine).
Further, depending on the rules a "fleet" may not be able to transport a corps of any size. There are different options that may be employed.
Reknoy
Originally posted by Reknoy
Chiteng: I just re-read the original post. I may be wrong, but I think we're only talking about the New Political Combinations.
Kingdom of Italy;
Kingdom of Bavaria;
Ottoman Empire;
Kingdom of Westphalia;
Confederation of the Rhine; and
...I'm forgetting.
Anyway -- only one of these (Italy) has a fleet counter that would not be present if the "Kingdom" options were not included.
IMO, the Ottoman is the real bummer of the group. The rest are not as critical in any given game.
All free states like Portugal et al can still field fleets (I would have to imagine).
Further, depending on the rules a "fleet" may not be able to transport a corps of any size. There are different options that may be employed.
Reknoy
Well the Ottoman can be easily fixxed
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic