Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
Kingdoms? If you could then please tell me the 3 most important kingdoms in the game. Poland, Ottoman and Rhine??? Again, coding is not the issue but time is and what we have to do is essentially create dormant nations on top of exisiting nations that when created, gives several goodies to the controlling MP. Not a trivial task but as many of you have said, Why play Turkey if you cannot create the Ottoman? Great point!

Thanks Marshall. Keep the bones a coming!

Regarding the above quote:

Wasn't Poland a duchy that was supposed to be administered by the kingdom of Saxony? Napoleon resisted all efforts to make it a kingdom. (What if Napoleon had made it a full blown kingdom?) The "Rhine" was a Confederation of duchies and kingdoms. At different times the were other confederations as well.

I know for the game they're called "kingdoms." I just bring this up for the sake of clarity. The trend to blurrrrrr history is a malaise that we can all do without. Computer games and movies like to do that for some reason.

Yes, what about the kingdom of Italy? Napoleon was it's king before his son was born. What about the kingdom of Naples? The Neopolitans sure had a healthy place in the Napoleonic Era. Then there is the French kingdom of Spain.

I say these things because it seems to me that the map/ game really should have a greater freedom in this respect. Limiting them to only three seems like a great mistake in my opinion.

I really do not care anymore how long it takes to do this game. We all want the game to be done right. Saying that there can only be three "kingdoms" made is like saying that this will only be a three player game : France, England, and Russia. Only it isn't a three player game. The designer "went the distance" and included all the major players so we can have what we know to be as EiA or EiH. All I'm suggesting is for Matrix Games to "go the distance" as well and bring us a minor, but IMO just as important a part of this history.

Heck take another three months. Its ok with me. Just get it done right.

Originally posted by Chiteng
You have not mentioned alternative scenarios?
like 1792.

If you DO the 1792 I hope you code in the decision to kill
the King and Queen.

1792 for certain!

Why not code in choices to kill all the kings and queens.

Yet, the taking over of a country by -say France defeating -say Prussia could incorporate the killing of the monarchy. All the French player has to do is say it. Right? The consequences are simply the other "kings" getting more pi~~ed off. For the game, the Prussian king and queen would dead.

Originally posted by Le Tondu
1792 for certain!

Why not code in choices to kill all the kings and queens.

Yet, the taking over of a country by -say France defeating -say Prussia could incorporate the killing of the monarchy. All the French player has to do is say it. Right? The consequences are simply the other "kings" getting more pi~~ed off. For the game, the Prussian king and queen would dead.

I doubt Nappy would ever have executed Marie Louisa.
She was far too cute.

Originally posted by Le Tondu
Heck take another three months. Its ok with me. Just get it done right.

LOL!!!
I don't think the Marshall's boss will approve to an extra three months of development.
I guess we'll have to see what the endproduct will be. If enough of us start buying, the Marshall will get extra time to produce some major patches to include those extra features that were now unfortunately omitted.

Jeroen.

Hi Marshall

Late in the piece, but congratulations to you and Matrix for taking on EiA.

It is refreshing to see a design and programming team with such an open philosophy. Great too to follow such lively debate in the forum.

Aeons have passed since I played the ADG version and most of the detail of the game now escapes my memory. I do however remember EiA as the best boardgame I ever played.

I would take this opportunity to add to the chorus of pleas that you include AI PBEM capability in Version 1.0, or a patch ASAP post-release. I see this as a core playability issue for the reasons outlined by earlier posters. I am not on St Helena but PBEM will be my main (only) playing medium.

Rest assured I will be voting support for all your effort with my Euros come release date.

Keep up the good work, all the best

For what it is worth, I wish to urge Matrix that they avoid abandoning the look and feel of the original game to court more ‘authenticity’.

Yes, Poland was the ‘Grand Duchy of Warsaw’, and it was supposedly administered by a third party.

That has nothing to do with the game, as it plays, though.

Yes, teleporting Feudal Corps are not authentic, but the game was designed with them as a crutch for the poor Turkish player. How many here have essentially said ‘Ugg, Turkey! Why would anyone want to play THEM?’. Well, it is a rough enough spot as it is, why make it even HARDER to play the Turks? Because it is more ‘authentic’?

If that is the goal, make it a six player game and make sure that the AI is up to snuff, because only a masochist would be willing to be the Turks.

As to the discussion of “Kingdoms”, let us be accurate and use the EiA term “New Political Combinations”. All have their place in the game, though in practice, I find that Poland s actually used the most, followed by Italy, with the Goal of decalring the Ottomans as a big factor in diplomacy in the Med.

Originally posted by Chiteng
I doubt Nappy would ever have executed Marie Louisa.
She was far too cute.

Forgive me, I meant Louise Augusta of Prussia.

Rumour has it she offered herself to Nappy if he would allow
Prussia to keep Magdeburg. He turned her down.

Its just a rumour.

Yeah, for being the only "real man" in Prussia, she was quite a looker.

As to the discussion of “Kingdoms”, let us be accurate and use the EiA term “New Political Combinations”.

Accuracy is just a matter of perspective. EiA used "New Political Combinations", but Empires in Harm uses 'Kingdoms' as a generic term for ANY multi-province minor nation. Michael Treasure's work already has influenced several elements (like the different naval levels), so calling them "Kingdoms" is merely referencing the EiH rules.

Of course, there is a further confusion, since in EiH, Treasure uses the more accurate Ottoman Empire for the major power EiA calls Turkey. EiH splits up the "Ottoman Empire" combination into three: "Barbary Coast", "Libya" and "Mamlukes".

All in all, I like this more than the "Ottoman Empire" of EiA- and would like to push for it instead. If Matrix is only looking for three new Kingdoms (again, Denmark, Sweden and Two Sicilies are a MUST for game-start), then I'd press for Poland, Mamlukes and Rhine.

So long as we all know what we're talking about... and more importantly- the Matrix designers know!

Originally posted by Khi

So long as we all know what we're talking about... and more importantly- the Matrix designers know!

Agreed, although I will also reiterate my wish that there will be a means to incrementally introduce EiH elements to the EiA game, rather than start with EiH.

my wish that there will be a means to incrementally introduce EiH elements to the EiA game, rather than start with EiH.

I agree that caution should be used not to make the game overly complex. It's not as if EiA was an easy game to sit down and learn!

But I welcome a lot of the ideas that EiH has brought into the rules- for historical accuracy and greater strategic flexibility. Being a computer game, we'll be spared a lot of work cross-referencing tables, rolling dice, multiplying by percents, so I encourage the Matrix designers to fill that freed-up mental energy with more options if they don't dramatically (or needlessly) complicate the game.

"New Political Combinations" is one area I think it's easy to add in the options that EiH brings, without needlessly complicating game-play. (Though it would admittedly complicate game development!) The rules for most of the new 'Kingdoms' are simple, the major exceptions are for the most interesting new kingdoms (Poland, Ottoman/Mamlukes, Rhine/HRE).

We certainly don't need a "Kingdom of the Caucasus" (from EiH) in the initial release- it won't affect most games very much. But this was a time period that was all about rewriting the map of Europe, and the more options (a la EiH) to do so, the better in my mind.

One more vain request, which it may be too late to implement-- an option for ANY existing or created kingdom to be played as a major power, by either AI or a player. Probably shooting for too much there, but our group has played EiA with Sweden as an 8th, and with Poland as an 8th (1788 scenario). Mostly a pipe-dream, but there can always be 2nd editions!

The teleporting feudal corps was simply one piece that I always found odd.

I agree with you, Yorlum.

Regarding "New Political Combinations" or "Kingdoms", I think the main point is that the actual rulebook uses the New Political Combinations reference.

Originally posted by Reknoy
Regarding "New Political Combinations" or "Kingdoms", I think the main point is that the actual rulebook uses the New Political Combinations reference.

What was divided into multi-district minors and new political combinations in EiA, is imply called "Kingdoms" in EiH. I much prefer the the EiH rules.
While on the subject of political changes, I do hope that it wil be possible to achieve and lose dominant status, that is usually an interesting long term goal.

Originally posted by Ktarn
What was divided into multi-district minors and new political combinations in EiA, is imply called "Kingdoms" in EiH. I much prefer the the EiH rules.
While on the subject of political changes, I do hope that it wil be possible to achieve and lose dominant status, that is usually an interesting long term goal.

I think trying to obtain dominance is a boondoggle.
It is a delibrete attempt by the designer to tempt you into attacking countries that are actually your natural allies.

In the 1805 scenario all must be subordinated to the need to defeat Napoleon.

In the 1792 scenario =) Russia is the boogieman.
(Suvarov)

Originally posted by Chiteng
I think trying to obtain dominance is a boondoggle.
It is a delibrete attempt by the designer to tempt you into attacking countries that are actually your natural allies.

In the 1805 scenario all must be subordinated to the need to defeat Napoleon.

In the 1792 scenario =) Russia is the boogieman.
(Suvarov)

No way. There are no "natural allies" in this world. Everybody's goal is to achieve victory. The game goes on for 10 years. If everybody gangs up on France early, G.Britain wins... To stop the Brit from winning there are usaully some quite unnatural alliances formed.

Domminant status (don't forget it goes both ways you can win it and you can loose it) is here as a goal for non dominant Major powers and as a warning for Dominant MP not to get too confident.

Originally posted by pfnognoff
No way. There are no "natural allies" in this world. Everybody's goal is to achieve victory. The game goes on for 10 years. If everybody gangs up on France early, G.Britain wins... To stop the Brit from winning there are usaully some quite unnatural alliances formed.

Domminant status (don't forget it goes both ways you can win it and you can loose it) is here as a goal for non dominant Major powers and as a warning for Dominant MP not to get too confident.

I dont agree. You MUST stop Nappy. Otherwise he will set up a rotation of defeated powers and become unstoppable.
Britain can be defeated by invasion.

OK. That IS a matter of making strategy decisions for a certain game, I agree. Prussia and Austria should try to agree about a coalition to stop early French advance, and work together with Russia and G. Britain towards this common goal. But in any case this should not have any bearing on the rules regarding gaining and loosing dominant status.

Originally posted by pfnognoff
OK. That IS a matter of making strategy decisions for a certain game, I agree. Prussia and Austria should try to agree about a coalition to stop early French advance, and work together with Russia and G. Britain towards this common goal. But in any case this should not have any bearing on the rules regarding gaining and loosing dominant status.

It is exactly for this reason I prefer the 1792 scenario.
Because you do NOT need to all gang up on France.

Russia although powerfull, needs to conquer its own territories
rather than attack anyone. Poland is quite fun.

Originally posted by Chiteng
It is exactly for this reason I prefer the 1792 scenario.
Because you do NOT need to all gang up on France.

Russia although powerfull, needs to conquer its own territories
rather than attack anyone. Poland is quite fun.

Incorporating various scenarios is a good thig to do, but core rules for 1805-1815 EiA shouldn't be ommited for any reason. Gaining/loosing dominance is one such rule.

All of us have some ideas about what rule is logical and what isn't, but comming to the mutual agreement about those is usually quite difficult , and if for no other reason this should be why original rule book must be pivotal in recreating EiA on the PC.

All other ideas, variants and scenarios should be optional.