Tell us where to go after EiA...???

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: Kyllyr

OMG, finally a topic that motivated me to register. I have been lurking here for over a year, waiting for the release of EiA.

Without looking at the true history of the ******* situations, any palce where you had multiple factions fighting for dominace would work. (Early China, Japan, Fuedal England or Europe, the Middle East etc)

Like someone said earlier, creating a fictional world and countries. You could market these senarios repeatedly.

Sort of like the Romance of the Three Kingdoms from KOEI huh?...brings to mind Ghengis Khan and Nobunaga's Ambition which were similiiar games as well....

[Norden_slith]

Also there were no corps at the time, the wars of the spanish succesion and the great nordic are pretty much perfect, as most countries are involved. All you really need is a interesting start and lots of knowledge of leaders and armies, which is readily available. A lot is already done for EiA there. I remember the combined Marlborough-Eugen counter - 5.5.7.!!

Going totally berserk, I still dream of the mediterranean at war even before Rome! There are many many scenarios there. *sigh* Seapeople, Egyptians, Greeks, Karthage, Rome....Usually, these periods are played in larger "timeunits" than months though.

I know, these examles are there, but saying it more then once seems to be a good idea...

Norden

[Norden_slith]

There was also talk about a fictional world, where each countries variables (location, size, corps-counters, income, moral, leaders, fleets, trade etc, etc) were auctioned off, so the starting position would be different each time...

Most historybuffs dismiss this out off hand, but fictional works have some powerful advantages. More then 7 players comes to mind...

Norden

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

First of all, unfortunately this posted query does not mean that EiA release is at hand! I'm just taking a few minutes to look ahead a bit and see where we could go after EiA. Metaphorically speaking, I'm getting ready to change lanes to turn left or right at the intersection!

Second, I like the Roman idea quite a bit and have not thought of this system in the Roman period ????????

Elaborate, if you would, on the following game types (Start date, turn length, number of players and the major nations):

Roman Game
American Revolution
American Civil War
Franco-Prussian
World Conquering (i.e. Advanced Risk)

Thank you

[Holz]

Going back even farther than Rome, I think the warring Greek City states (Pelloponesian War, Persian Invasion, etc.) period would model well to EiA. You have two main powers (Athens~= Britain and Sparta~=France), one a dominant Naval power, one a dominant Land power. Lots of smaller states, some of which would also be playable, and large state on the Periphery (Persia~=Russia?), and a period of time where there was on-again, off-again wars, changing alliances, etc. Seems like it would be a good match. I once made up a map of the period to play diplomacy on, but it didn't feel quite right making all the powers equal. I think EiA is a very good system to model this time period. I'll have to work out what exact dates and turn length would work. Besides the 3 major powers already listed, perhaps Thebes, Macedon, and Argos could be playable powers.

[1LTRambo]

Hey Marshall, what about extending EiA later in time? Lets say through the Crimean war, or mid 1800's.

[Norden_slith]

What about the "30 years war". It's pretty much perfect for this kind of wargame with long peaceperiods in between.

Norden

[Norden_slith]

The wars of the Asyrians, Babylon, Egypt are a very interesting peroid as well.
Look at "Chariots of war" for inspiration....

Norden

[Frank McNally]

On time period for Rome-

Almost anytime up to the Third Punic War could be used to play a game with a flow like EiA, after this it would be 6 against 1. The periods before this will have atleast 2-4 strong powers, and reasonable smaller powers. You may be interested in checking out the new board game Sword of Rome for some insight here and/or Rise of the Roman Republic (the scenarios give an idea of the numerous min-wars that could come and go).

For Ancients it might make sense to increase the turn legth to 3 months, trouble is one could realistically have more than 1 battle in this time for the same army. I think leaving one month turns could be ok, perhaps movement could be constained by nasty forage effects for long moves without supply (roman units ought to be able to go 300-500 miles per month if supplied)

[megalomania2003]

In addition to the diplomatic game, tactical movement and combat system you should also place your game in a setting where, realistically, a total victory (like Jena&Auerstadt) would not result in the destruction/absorbtion of a Nation. EIA works around the fact that no one, as long as you are not playing Sweden, can be eliminated by ONE total victory.

[Lascaris]

For a Roman game, you could set it in the period covering the Celtic war, 2nd Punic war, 1st & 2nd Macedonian war, Illyrian war and 1st Seleucid war, 225BC or so until 189BC. Major factions could be Gauls, Carthaginians, Romans, Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemaic Egyptian. Minor factions could be Spanish, Syracuse, Achaen greek, Aeotolian greek and non-Roman Italians. Lots of fighting and diplomacy during this period and it was very far from a foregone conclusion that the Romans would end up winning.

[CSSS]

Marshal in response to your five periods here are my opinions.

1. Rome would be perfect because of the diplomacies , structure of legions, territorial conrol VS modern unit structures. You have the ability to add on several expasion kits therefore increasing revinue for your compamy and covering a broader spectrum of the huge Roman era. Early Republic, Middle republic and late republic the same for Imperial Rome.
2. Amrican Revolution was largly a low level warfare, if if had not been for late war French Naval intervention and commitment of French regular trrops and siege artillery we very well could have lost, depite revisionist history we idi militarily lose 1812, but won the treaty of ghent!
3. American civil war would be interesting but do bear in mind it was the first modern war as the units which finished the war were substancialy different fron those that started the war. The state of Michigan had more industry than ALL of the South combined. Due to the unique nature of this conflict I wonder if this would be the right game engine?
4. Franco Prussian war was very brief in duration, and while intrquing to some would not have MASS sale value.
5. World Conquering GREAT IDEA you would need a RAZOR sharp AI and the ability to generate Random maps, with such feature as A Nuber of players. B.Size of area. C. # of Nuetrals. D.Difficulty levels including immpossible. E.Random genrated leaders, ect ect this game with these feature would have immense replay value and also lend itself to expansions sets!

[Windfire]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

To give an idea of the breadth of the period, there is an old board game "Imperium Romanum II" that covers most of the era with 33 different scenarios with player numbers ranging from 2 to 6 depending on the scenario.

Wow! I still have Imperium Romanum II in my drawer. Thought I was the only one on earth who owned the box...

This is almost a happy moment for me

It is a fairly enjoyable game with some variety because of the changes in units as the periods change. I find it interesting that they managed to capture the entire timeframe of the Roman Empire in one game.

[Windfire]

Roman Game

Many concepts would port over well. Leaders would be consols, corps would be legions/warbands, fleets would be tiremes, infantry and cavalry translate well, countries would be countries/provinces, diplomacy would be between the various powers/factions, etc.

Possible Scenarios:

Change from farmer/soldiers to empire - 3 players - Marius, Sulla, Mithradites, starts around 88 BC, ends around 82 BC.

First Triumverate, nominally 5 players - Caeser, Pompey, Crassus, Cierro and Gauls/Parthia Media/Gallaceia as one player. Start sometime in 55 BC end somewhere around 52 BC. Romans are allied initial, eventually fall into civil war. Could be extended to latter to show Caesar's conquest of Italian peninsula.

Second Triumerate, nominally 3 players - all roman factions, 38-35 BC

Numerous other civil wars

Various fights to stave of barbarian hordes and the collapse of the two empires (East and West)

Board game Imperium Romanum II scenarios capture the flavor of the period well.

Civil war

Leaders translate well, corps concept translates well, Inf and cav translate, navies and privateers translate for the most part, minimal to no diplomacy, 2 player slugfast to the end. No surrenders except defeat. Provinces would be states. 1861 to 1865.

Victory games did a good board game on this topic, titled Civil War.

[Forward_March]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:


Elaborate, if you would, on the following game types (Start date, turn length, number of players and the major nations):

Roman Game
American Revolution
American Civil War
Franco-Prussian
World Conquering (i.e. Advanced Risk)

Thank you

Hi Marschall,

I'll elaborate as far as I'm able:

1. Roman game...don't know much about the period, but what I've read sounds interesting. I'd think it fun to have Hannibal nd his elephants.

2. American Revolution: Only 3 players could really be effective/playable....and you can reduce that to 2 if Britain uses it's navy properly. And you'd have to make it a world covering war to give people anywhere to go. Otherwise, your single objective is to kick the Brits out....or conversely to subjugate the Yanks. Small scale combats...I believe anything about this war should be done in a battalion level game.

3. American Civil war: Smaller combat forces, only 2 sides...if anybody (especially Britain) allied with the Union, it'd be over real soon. And once lost, it's not like the South was gonna rise again.

4. Franco_Prussian: New type of war. Breechloading rifles, and truly effective artillery put an end to linear formations. No fun in picking combat chits...just relying on the die roll, and modifiers. Also, still a very short war. I don't think an "EIA" system could do it justice. Too many modifiers...like the forlorn hopes placed in the mitraileusse.

5. World conquering/advanced Risk *shudder* I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth;)

[Lascaris]

Instead of the American Revolution you could set something a few years earlier during the French and Indian/Seven years war period. It would be pretty similar to EIA with some North American involvement so not sure it would differentiate itself enough to make it worthwhile but it is an option.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Norden

What about the "30 years war". It's pretty much perfect for this kind of wargame with long peaceperiods in between.

Norden

Don't know why more people haven't mentioned it - plenty of diplomacy and fighting. It would be nice.

When was the last time you saw a turn based strategy game of Rome (not counting board games)? With all the Romanophiles in the world and the big disappointment of the recent Pax Romama game, the world is begging for a game about Rome. It doesn't have to follow EIA too closely (you said think out of the box - maybe you just meant it like opening the game box?[:D]). You could pick any well known period to start with and then sell a ton of scenario add-on packs. Start with the late era (my preference) - Huns, Vandals and Goths - oh my! Maybe even Franks, Frisians and Burgundians!

No matter which era you choose I'll buy the game.

[ktotwf]

Thirty Years War or any of the numerous Early Modern Power Struggle Wars (War of Spanish Succession, etc...), and also Frederick the Great's Era. I would buy those games in a second

But most of all, I wanna see an 1813 scenario for EIA.

But with this combat system, the best totally new game would be a Thirty Years War game. Running through Germany with Gustavus Adolphus would be delightful.

But if you are gonna do a Roman Era game, then I would suggest that it be an Entire-Roman-Era spanning game, and it not be tied only to Rome. For example, if you play as Macedonia and wipe Rome off the face of the map, then the whole game should still go smoothly. Don't make it too Rome-O-Centric.

[BoerWar]

Having Kingmaker withdrawls, how about - War of the Roses. Houses rather than countries with meddling from outside forces. Scale down time and force sizes.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

Having Kingmaker withdrawls, how about - War of the Roses. Houses rather than countries with meddling from outside forces. Scale down time and force sizes.

Thats a very good idea. The political part of the game would really have to be intricate.