play as minors?

[1LTRambo]

Matrix Games could go very far with the concept of bringing additional players into the game. I will address each in order.
The United States. The problem with the U.S. is that Empires in Arms is a European game.
Bringing the U.S. in as a major player would take the focus from Europe and move it to a global aspect. Then you would have to add additional empires through out the world, ei: Aztecs in Central America, Indians and Chinees in Asia, Zulus in Africa, etc.
Sweeden. Sweeden makes sense because they are a minor that is powerful enough to fend for itself and is in a position geographiclly that could survive against major powers such as England and Russia. However, I can not see Sweeden being capable of expansion because all of the other potenital conquests that Sweeden has would be gobbled up by the other majors.
Poland would make sense if Matrix could program an AI that would control Poland once it is declared a state and it could come in at an unspecified time in the game, or not at all. The problem with Poland is that they have land and man power that, again, the majors would want to gobble up.
This would also be true of Italy.
I therefore think that the game as it exists is the most plausable. Anything else would detract from the game instead of add.

[YohanTM2]

The other option for expansion would be for Matrix to port ADG's new game 7 Ages [:D]

http://www.a-d-g.com.au

[Forward_March]

I agree with Rambo. Sweden is just too weak, it's heyday was long past. I've never seen Sweden NOT gobbled up by Russia in the first 6 months of a game of EIA. How would tiny Sweden give up 3 provinces if it had to sue for peace? Who would it's leaders be? Karl XII and Gustavus Aldolfus have long been dead.
Which Allies could come to it's aid when Russia decided to invade? A France under blockade from Britain? Prussia or Austria facing warily to their west? Spain or Turkey? Or Britain with it's feeble army. Really guys, there is no point.

That goes the same for any of the minors. The only one in central Europe with any population at all, Bavaria which had 3 million souls in her borders, could barely put 40,000 men in the field. Bavaria could only survive with French patronage. Still, pointless.

Poland? You guys forget why Poland was carved up in the first, second, and third instances. The good old Liberium Veto. Simply stated, it meant that if one member of the Polish Parliament (or whatever it was called) voted no, each initiative failed. No majority rule, therefore nothing ever got done. That aside, who would defend her? None of her neighbors, that's for certain. Pointless

Then, the good Ole US of A. That'd be just too much of a good thing. A powerful nation untouchable by anyone...even Britain. Also the Americans really had no interest in a European war. It's hard enough to keep 7 players in a game...how you gonna keep 8 involved. It's better left the way it is.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Forward_March
Then, the good Ole US of A. That'd be just too much of a good thing. A powerful nation untouchable by anyone...even Britain.

Ummm......I am all patriotic and proud of my nation and all but we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812 and the British were not even taking our theater seriously. If we had not managed a bluff at the fortifications of Baltimore the war would have ended with us being returned to the Crown and Madison swinging from the gallows. As it was we were lucky to be returned to the status quo (New Orleans was won AFTER the peace don't forget).

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Forward_March
Then, the good Ole US of A. That'd be just too much of a good thing. A powerful nation untouchable by anyone...even Britain.

Ummm......I am all patriotic and proud of my nation and all but we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812 and the British were not even taking our theater seriously. If we had not managed a bluff at the fortifications of Baltimore the war would have ended with us being returned to the Crown and Madison swinging from the gallows. As it was we were lucky to be returned to the status quo (New Orleans was won AFTER the peace don't forget).

If England had really focused on the US theatre in 1812 you are right Murat, I think tea would be the drink of choice in the US. At least until you had another revolution [;)]

[Ozie]

Sweden is not that undefensible. Finland could fall but if Sweden has it's fleets Russia has hard and expensive time to march over land to Sweden. I'm not saying it's easy but it can be done. Espescially if the map is changed to include all the rivers there should be between Finland and Sweden.

[ardilla]

I agree with Ozie, Sweden was a powerfull "minor" country in that era.

If i remember well, the russians had many difficulties to attack and defend from King Gustavus, the navy was strong and army too, besides the size of course.

I didnt played the scenario with sweden as 8th player, but it looked nice to me.

Maybe, some balance should be made, like the one where ships cost only $8 to sweden and maybe Russian should had to start the campaing with half of the fleet in the baltic and the other half in the south....

Is a candy for russian or GB the north territories, and with an 8th player like Sweden this could not be such a candy.

I would not mind to play it, since it is a pbem game, if I am out of the game I will start another one, well, actually I think I will start 3 or 4 the day I download the game from MG online store [:D]

Another think I will like to talk about is the global scene of the game and wars in the 1700-1800s.
The main target was Europe, but Napoleon was also looking abroad and could be considered a world war, with colonies and trade as the major point!

Regards.

[megalomania2003]

ORIGINAL: ardilla
Is a candy for russian or GB the north territories, and with an 8th player like Sweden this could not be such a candy.

I would regard the Northern territories as even sweeter candy with an 8th player. Now there would also be political points to have and -

As Russia I would never be able to accept someone holding Finland (to big a threat to Petersburg)

And as GB I would never accept a Sweden with the Danish fleet. Especially not considering the ships that Sweden would build (and his army is too small to gobble up much cash.

So do not play Sweden with me around. I would give it 1-3 years exsistence.

[eg0master]

Playing Sweden might be nice if you have someone extra that is not likely to play the game to the end. Or a way to introduce someone new to the game. "We" have introduced a few 3rd Reich players letting them play France or Italy. Playing Sweden in EiA would be something like playing France or Italy in a ww2 game: You'll have fun if you like to loose and you will eventually be eliminated.

If you have 8 players so eager to play, find 6 more players and play two 7 player campains instead of playing Sweden. I'm quite convinced almost everybody wanting to play sweden are swedes in the samw way some US people want US in EiA.

I think there will be more important stuff to work in for future patches than adding a few doomed minors as human playable. Fine if you could play ANY minor as human (HOI did have that if I remember correct). But adding specific countries is no point. make them all human playable in that case and you could play Libya for a real challange... [:D]

[yammahoper]

Sweden as a player? Hmm. Here is how I see it.

Prussia either loses to Fr in war but kept large army or tells Fr Au is ripe and Pr will stay out of Fr business. Fr agrees. Pr talks with GB and offers Norway if GB helps take Sweden. GB agrees. GB declares war on Denmark and Sweden and Pr declares war on Sweden. British navies crush Dane and Sedish navies, Pr marches across straights into Denamark and watches single GB corp dice up Danes, then marches across straights into Sweden. GB places depot on fleet and supplies erstwhile ally as Pr marches into Sweden, crushes armies and captures capital. No more Sweden. IF Russia is a bot upset, he is offered Finland and an alliance with Pr.

OR Russia brings up Cossaks and uses them to make depots in front of him as ha marches into Sweden and kills them dead. No more Sweden.

I once saw Turkey win the support of Sweden and then BEAT the single corp on the single fleet Russia sent. Russia retreated to a port and LOST the war because he had no forces in the minor/Sweden at the start of the next turn, resulting in the Turk having Sweden as a Free State!

Yamma

[vonpaul]

cant use Cossacks to create depots in enemy territory.

7.2.3.3.2: For a major power to place a new depot outside of its own territory, an unbesieged corps of that major power must be in that area.

[yammahoper]

My memory must be foggy...cossaks and Au freecorp are not considered corps?

Ah, one of the glorys of having this game on PC...no more arguements about rules, lol.

Chargrinned,
Yamma

[1LTRambo]

Exactly[;)]

[Forward_March]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Forward_March
Then, the good Ole US of A. That'd be just too much of a good thing. A powerful nation untouchable by anyone...even Britain.

Ummm......I am all patriotic and proud of my nation and all but we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812 and the British were not even taking our theater seriously. If we had not managed a bluff at the fortifications of Baltimore the war would have ended with us being returned to the Crown and Madison swinging from the gallows. As it was we were lucky to be returned to the status quo (New Orleans was won AFTER the peace don't forget).

What you forget is that just like during the Revolutionary war, the Brits could win battles, but wherever their army wasn't, the Americans could do what they pleased. Even if the American army had lost every regular battle it might have been in, the British would have suffered worse than the French did while in spain. You can't crush powerful nationalism with an army that can't control the countryside. Of course, examples of that can even be seen today if you watch the news...though Islamic fundamentalism or anarchism is the case now.

[Windfire]

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Forward_March
Then, the good Ole US of A. That'd be just too much of a good thing. A powerful nation untouchable by anyone...even Britain.

Ummm......I am all patriotic and proud of my nation and all but we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812 and the British were not even taking our theater seriously. If we had not managed a bluff at the fortifications of Baltimore the war would have ended with us being returned to the Crown and Madison swinging from the gallows. As it was we were lucky to be returned to the status quo (New Orleans was won AFTER the peace don't forget).

What you forget is that just like during the Revolutionary war, the Brits could win battles, but wherever their army wasn't, the Americans could do what they pleased. Even if the American army had lost every regular battle it might have been in, the British would have suffered worse than the French did while in spain. You can't crush powerful nationalism with an army that can't control the countryside. Of course, examples of that can even be seen today if you watch the news...though Islamic fundamentalism or anarchism is the case now.

My take is the same. They Brits could win battles, but they would have been unable to conquer the country. Not very different from the revolutionary war with the same outcome where they would have eventually had enough and agreed to end the war.

[Pippin]

A few things worry me about adding more players to the game.

One major complaint I keep hearing over and over is that there are already too many players (7) to this game, and how long things take to complete a game. Assume, you find enough for a game, then more chances for game to be dropped due to dropping out members, etc.

But there are some other issues here as well. Such as play balance. How will this change things? Will a bid system be enough to keep it balanced? If I am Britain, then I will feel sorry for the poor bastard who has to be stuck with Sweden. I’ll gladly give them a royal ass kicking from one end of their country to another. Then to make things worse, I sense there is going to be a lot of other players who will not be able to resist in joining into the pillaging and freebies.

I’ll spend a lot of time raping the easy points from one side, while everyone else is on the other doing the same. And 1/3 of all my points I gain from her will be automatically spent on withdrawing an equal amount from the French. Those French are going to be so damn mad, hehe, that they will be screaming for all her allies to wipe Sweden off the map just to stop all the point stealing.

Well, maybe not…. But we shall see.

[Forward_March]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

A few things worry me about adding more players to the game.

One major complaint I keep hearing over and over is that there are already too many players (7) to this game, and how long things take to complete a game. Assume, you find enough for a game, then more chances for game to be dropped due to dropping out members, etc.

I imagine, dear Pippin, that we'll have to find one or two hardcore players (guys that try really hard (despite non-wargame loving spouses) to whip out a turn a day per game, and let the AI do the rest once we see which guys can't keep up a pace to keep the game interesting. Nothing worse to me than to create a strategy then lose your train of thought because you haven't had a turn in 2 weeks.

Actually...now that I think on it, it might be cool. Gain allies and then see what happens when their incompetent (AI) leaders foil your best strategy. That sounds like the Napoleonic wars in a nutshell;)

Make that AI strong, Marshall...Please

[shanebosky]

Maybe as a start Matrix could release a version with Sweden and particularly America as Uncontrolled Major Powers. They are definitely more powerful than the usual minor, and can exert far more influence on European matters than others, but Sweden is just not powerful enough to really contend, while America is too much on the periphery and probably just weak enough to make it only feasible to fght a defensive war (a la 1812), or prehaps a minor offensive (a la Barbary Wars) against Spain or Turkey. I agree with Pippin about the detriments of player control, but I absolutely think Sweden and America should have more presence in the game.

[Pippin]

This is giving me flashbacks of Axis&Allies. Normally the bid is for extra Axis units. Then one day someone came up with the bright idea of letting Russia be controlled by the AI, so that a 2 player game results in really only 2 countries per player under control.

However, it was found out pretty quick that the allies are the ones who need the bid advantage that game, and a high one at that! Reason being the AI performs so stupidly, that you could place an inf next to Russia, yet Russia garrisons Karelia and leaves its capitol wide open! This sure has caused a lot of screaming by the poor unfortunate sole who decided to take the allied side that game. Lesson learned the HARD way.

Right, well I do have a habit of talking about A&A far too much still…

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

ORIGINAL: Pippin

A few things worry me about adding more players to the game.

One major complaint I keep hearing over and over is that there are already too many players (7) to this game, and how long things take to complete a game. Assume, you find enough for a game, then more chances for game to be dropped due to dropping out members, etc.

I imagine, dear Pippin, that we'll have to find one or two hardcore players (guys that try really hard (despite non-wargame loving spouses) to whip out a turn a day per game, and let the AI do the rest once we see which guys can't keep up a pace to keep the game interesting. Nothing worse to me than to create a strategy then lose your train of thought because you haven't had a turn in 2 weeks.

Actually...now that I think on it, it might be cool. Gain allies and then see what happens when their incompetent (AI) leaders foil your best strategy. That sounds like the Napoleonic wars in a nutshell;)

Make that AI strong, Marshall...Please

Having played some larger multi-player formats I can't agree. There is nothing worse than investing months in a game and then have your ally go AI while the other guys stomp your butt. I have been on both sides of this and frankly even when it is their key ally that goes AI it still sucks.