July Update

[datacollectioncenter]

John:

The host seat is exactly what we're testing as we speak! What we have right now is the 7 human player version so set back wait, and drink a cold one because soon ... you'll be in the hot seat!

LOL!

Thanks

[John Umber]

Thank you Marshall Ellis!

You are fueling the hopes for this game.

In an earlier post was it mentioned about simultanious turns. How will this affect the "double move" of the french? I know this double move can be used with ruthless efficiancy. I suspect the double move is used in the EIA rules to show the new daring strategies used by Napoleon. He made his armies march during hollidays, tea time and even during the night. By use of this move could he concentrate his attack along the frontier before the enemy was in a prepared position. It is a large part of the game and balance the ratio of the troops. France is usually outnumbered two to one. Even with better troops, it is still quite tricky to outmanouver the opponents. They have a tendency of knowing what you are looking for...

[datacollectioncenter]

John:

You are correct. We DID mention simutaneous movement in the engine BUT since then we have abandoned the process because of exactly what you mentioned (The French Land / British Sea double move). The feature was a part of our original design BUT that game engine was not EIA. Since Matrix got the EIA rights, we've had do some production "editing" to make this thing right (And we're still in the process of doing these edits). Hope that helps...

Thank you

[soapyfrog]

So simultaneous movement will NOT be in the final version? becuase I think it would imnprove the game dramatically especially if done on an impulse system.

[datacollectioncenter]

Soapyfrog:

We tried and tried to make simultaneous movement work but this TOTALLY nullifies the British ability to announce his naval move (Effectively giving him the option of a double move) AND nullifies the French ability to do the same for land. I'm assuming you're aware of these abilities that these nations have? Our original design would take move orders and then simultaneously step through each unit's move at the same time ELIMINATING any move order advantage a nation would have.

At this time, we have no plans to add simultaneous movement because of the impact it would have on the strategic weight of each nation.

BUT ... Never say never...!

Thank you

[Supervisor]

I do not like the simul movement and just wanted to support your decision to not modify the game by adding it.

Dominance is a big part of the game and it would take away a big part of being dominant.

[jnier]

Marshall,

How will PBEM work without simultaneous movement? Does that mean that I have I have to wait for seven players to go through their individual phases in sequence to get through a single phase? If you figure 4 phases per turn...that works out to 28 different files having to be sent by email to play a single turn. This would seem to make PBEM with 7 players unplayable (although it would work great for a smaller number of players).

We are playing with simultaneous movement in PBEM and it is a blast (England and France are doing fine BTW). I hope there are plans to streamline play for PBEM.

Jason

[jnier]

BTW, I didn't mean to sound so negative in my last post. Marshall and everybody else is doing a great job on the game. I just hope that multiplayer PBEM will actually be playable. My $.02. Keep up the good work!

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
Soapyfrog:.............At this time, we have no plans to add simultaneous movement because of the impact it would have on the strategic weight of each nation.

BUT ... Never say never...!

Thank you

What?

No simuyltaneous movement? Now EiA becomes just another stupid RTS game? No thanks.


I say, so what if it wasn't EiA. You guys had a chance to make something better and you took the easy way out. Too bad. Well, I'm sorry to say this but I think that you guys just lost a customer.

[soapyfrog]

I support simultaneous movement, mostly becuase I think the ability to "double move" is a little silly. It is quite extreme I think for the French player for exapmple to be able to move his army 8 full areas beofre anyone moves a muscle.

If you do "impulse style" simultaneous movement then you can give the British and the French the option to make an extra move one impulse before or one impulse after everyone else giving them in effect the ability to do a mini-double move.

The French would still retain their advantages of extra morale and faster movement, and the Britihs their better morale and other naval bonuses, and really those benefits are plenty. The double move is an "artifact" of non-simul turn-based play, there is no need to perpetuate it in a computer game version.

Providing it as an option at least would be great becuase it would certainly be a more "realistic" and operationally ionteresting way to play!

Le Tondu: EiA is a turn-based game. I am not sure how not using simultaneous movement makes it an RTS since the board game does not use simultaneous movement and is very much a turn-based game!

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by soapyfrog
.......The double move is an "artifact" of non-simul turn-based play, there is no need to perpetuate it in a computer game version.............

Well said Soapyfrog. Why does an unreal quality for a game like a double turn have to be in the computer version of the game? Like you point out, it isn't necessary.

Ok, I will hang around for a little longer to see how this game ends up.

[datacollectioncenter]

Le Tondu:

Don't cut us out yet! You must remember that we at Matrix got the LEGAL RIGHTS and PERMISSION from the EIA guys to do this game and we CANNOT put their name on just anything! If we deviate too much from the original then why call it EIA, in fact could we call it EIA?

You're right, our original engine was simultaneous movement and personally , I liked it (It was my design so I'm a little partial to it like a new baby) BUT after Matrix secured the rights to do the computer version of EIA, we sat down and discussed what had to be changed. We ALL agreed that turn based movement was a biggy (It was mentioned on these forums as a very high priority to maintain).

Jnier:

I'm betting on it being playable. I've never played in PBEM EIA simultaneous movement. How does that work? How do you compensate for the double moves? I'm curious...???
I don't take anything negative. I'm a big boy so shoot straight and tell it the way it is. You won't make me mad or lose any respect from me!

Thank you

[soapyfrog]

I don't think the double move really needs to be compensated for at all.

My favorite turn-based simultaneous movement system would be impulse based.

break down the movement phase into 5 impulses. In each impulse where a given unit type is called for to move, it gets to move one space. If the destination space costs 2 movement points the corps must remain stationary for one impulse prior to moving in.

Movement would proceed in the follwing sequence, with each impulse being secret plotted and resolved simultaneously.

Impulse 1: Cav
Impulse 2: Cav, Inf
Impulse 3: Cav, Inf
Impulse 4: Cav, Inf
Impulse 5: Cav

French inf corps may make an additonal movement in either impulse 1 or impulse 5, decided globally for all their corps at the start of the mvoement phase (this would allow France a sort of mini- double move).

All combat is resolved after all movement impulses are finished, all other rules apply normally.

This would probably slow the game down a bit (more "decision points"), but it would be a great option to have for the ultimate in Napoleonic operations. If it were coupled with a limited Fog-of-War type option is would be unsurpassed in coolness

The 2nd way to do it would be to have secret simultaneous plotted movement, with the game engine working out where the movement of stacks intersects and therefore where the battles take place.

My vote is for impulse movement, implemented at least as an option.

Real-Time movement should not be an option... we already have EU2 which does that quite nicely. The Turn-Based nature of the game should of course be preserved.

[Supervisor]

Is this anything like the movement in WIF? If so, I do not think it needs to apply to such a "grand strategy" game as EiA. EiA is not meant to be a heavy tactical game. And I think Marshall is right, if you were to change too much, why call it EiA? Would it be EiA? I think if you created a new game based on a lot of EiA stuff, that would be stealing. And if you are going to change it that much, then why not create a new game. Dominance is a big part of the game, and you all are willing to take a big advantage of being dominant away from the dominant powers. I understand what you guys are saying about making improvements and such, I just don't think this is one department that it needs to occur in.

[Wynter]

Marshall Ellis and everyone else,

Simultaneous (impulse) movement was created to enhance game speed when playing PBEM. Game speed is the most essential factor of a Empires in Arms game, if it slows down to much, people lose interest and wander off. Therefore I try to maintain a cycle of playing one full game month in one week. Even at this speed, the Grand Campaign will take near three years to complete.

The EIA computer game as it is now, is playable in hot seat, but IMO not playable using PBEM. There is too much required player interaction: diplomacy, call to allies, reinforcement, naval phase and land phase. Each of these five phases have to be processed by each of the seven players: we're talking already 35 communication packages and user interactions.
I, as PBEM GM, have the experience that one player action takes up to 24 hours to complete (send message to player, player reads and process message, player answers message), so to work through all five phases with seven players would take over a month in real time. Add some battles (which also require player interaction: tactics, guard commitment...) and you'll see that it totaly escalates and becomes unplayable.

Therefore, Marshall, I beg you to reconcider your decision and include sim movement for PBEM. If you would like to gain some experience in a PBEM game, I invite you to take a look at our game. Maybe one of our players (John/Reknoy or Jason/jnier) can take you along or you could take a (virtual) look over my shoulder to see what a GM does to keep the game going.
If you're interested, contact me at:
orc.warlord@skynet.be

Jeroen.

[John Umber]

Impulse movement

EIA was never designed to be played as PBEM, but is a feature we have adepted the game for. It is true every turn last a horrible amount of time. Even playing the grand campaign over the board is almost impossible. 500 hours is an awful long time for the same seven players.

Using options is a nice idea for PBEM or hotseat if someone wish to use simultaneous movement. Using impulses could speed up the game a lot. Planning step by step is not that bad. The dominant advantaged could be simulated by giving the french/english option of moving their impulses between turns. Example french could move (maximum 2 impulses between turns?) so their offensive gets two free movements impulses the turn after their choice. This could also be done in "hidden". A little surprise if the opponents are not watching. Could work nicely and is not all different from the original. Remember that France doesn't have double movement points. Just move them after each other. Making a rush, the allied have the same number of movement points/turns.

This would shorten PBEM by hours every turn. Remember that playing games with someone in a different timezone is very anoying from time to time...

Just a little thought for you...

Thank you for your time Ellis plus others!

[soapyfrog]

Originally posted by ryta1203
Is this anything like the movement in WIF? If so, I do not think it needs to apply to such a "grand strategy" game as EiA. EiA is not meant to be a heavy tactical game. And I think Marshall is right, if you were to change too much, why call it EiA? Would it be EiA? I think if you created a new game based on a lot of EiA stuff, that would be stealing. And if you are going to change it that much, then why not create a new game. Dominance is a big part of the game, and you all are willing to take a big advantage of being dominant away from the dominant powers. I understand what you guys are saying about making improvements and such, I just don't think this is one department that it needs to occur in.

WiF does use "impulses" but it's very different concept in that game. In WiF an "impulse" is like a full monthly turn in EiA, and the "game turn" is actually the economic turn.

My proposed simultaneous movement system for EiA (although I think not quite like the "impulse" system used in EiA PBEM) would surely be an improvement, as in reality armies did not wait around while their opponents dashed around, only to move great distances themselves while their opponents stood still in turn... no I assure you all those armies were moving simultaneously. An impulse system like I outlined above would be the closest thing to simulating that in EiA while keeping it turn-based.

It would still be EiA in all respects! Rejecting improvements to the game just becuase they would some small amount of complexity is not a good idea... things like the advanced naval combat ruls are a good example of an improvement to the game that most people now find vital.

[Chiteng]

The double-move feature is a VERY good way of simulating
Napoleon having the initiative.

Very difficult to simulate that with simultaneous.

[Capitaine]

One thing that I've always observed about EiA is that it never purported to be THE "realistic" strategy game of the Napoleonic Wars. It was a nice, gamey contrivance, based loosely on the "Diplomacy"/"Machiavelli" model with a bit more detail for tactical flavor. Appeals to "realism" are meaningful ONLY if the dispute is so fine that one more "straw" will tilt the scales in a given, proper direction.

I understand Marshall's and Matrix's concern about making EiA, the board game, for the PC. Much the same approach as AH making 3R for the PC. If there are board game tactics (as there were in 3R) for "getting" a "double move", then omitting them is unfaithful to the original game.

However, IF your alternative is designed to make the game much, much better AND improve multiplayer gameplay by speeding up the play by eliminating the notorious multiple file exchanges, that IS a worthy goal. EiA in its original form was designed to be played with up to 7 players FTF. Now that the medium is changing to pbem by up to 7 players around the world, this is a MAJOR change of design intent itself. No less than the importance -- and perhaps more important a design facet -- than any "double move" strategem.

Therefore, in the interest of optimizing the PC game's design for its intended medium of play, I would encourage the design team to make certain deviations from the "original rules" where it is necessary to make gameplay actually feasible.

Stick to the letter of the rules when all things are equal (IOW, don't change something just b/c it seems "better"), but if the decision impacts a major concern as to how the PC game will be played in the FIRST INSTANCE, then consider carefully how important something is to the original design intent of the game before you abandon it.

From past pbem of other games w/ multiple players (more than two), excessive file exchanges KILLED every game. Every single one. That is not in the interest of EiA for the PC, IMO.

[Le Tondu]

There is supposed to be a stock EiA version that will be just like the original. No problem there. Keep the bloody double movement thingee there. The EiA people will be happy.

Then there is supposed to be the enhanced version that has all of the REAL COOL changes that we want -like simultaneous movement. I'm sure that EiH has influenced a lot there. This version isn't supposed to be EiA at all, so why worry if it doesn't resemble EiA or if it can't be called EiA???

It doesn't make sense.