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

[meyerg]

I modified Empire in Arms and added a magic system and monster type units to make it a fantasy game. I think it could be adapted to any existing universe or (because of copyright laws) a new universe.
greg

[Frank McNally]

One of the beauties of EiA is that you are effectively in the position of the ruler of a nation. For that reason any scenario designed should not span more than 30 yrs.

[Windfire]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I would agree, War of the Roses would definately have potential as well.

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Great Idea, but why not try to get the rights to "Republic of Rome"?

Multiplayer against the computer would be a hoot, with everyone arguing about what do about various wars, insurrections, asassination attempts, trials, etc.

Designing an AI for single player might be a difficulty, but there might be enough demand for an online or server hosted type game.

I can just see the after action reports...."Due to the ineptitude of the Senate, Rome fell in 33 BC. We would have been all right, but Player X refused to send Scipio to fight Hamilcar and we were overrun, losing 10 legions in one campaign. Player X will not be invited back to the next game, which starts in 1 day."

[Frank McNally]

A simple AI for RoR, I had worked a bit on asimple AI for the board version. It would play a decent game, but does not deal with its own senators being persuaded. I think an AI for RoR would be much simpler than EiA. Here is my example, broken down by phase:

Rule-

Auto faction senators cannot be persuaded away.

Income-

Always donate if donation will cause a senator to reach 31 influence.
Donate to match other players if it causes influence gain or will prevent state bankruptcy.
Except where donation will cause a senator to reach 31 influence choose donating senator based on lowest influence. Break ties by FL first, then based only lowest Mil. rating, then most popular
Distribute half to FL and half to faction treasury, then take 3 from treasury and give to senator who will seek a knight.
From half in faction treasury give required cash to host planned games (see intrigue phase rules)

If PM in faction distribute 20 to PM as soon as possible (ignore this amount when calculating further distribution).

Intrigue-
Assign FL to best orator in faction.
If no need to reassign FL, host best games possible, seek 5 pop for each senator beginning with most influential. After each has achieved 5, continue offering best games by each senator in turn to keep popularity as balanced as possible.

Senate phase

Always vote in favor of measures which award as many concessions to faction as to other factions receiving awards, otherwise vote no.
Always vote in favor of own election, if bribe will guarantee election bribe as needed.
Always vote against the election of any senator with more than the median influence (if PM veto or use other non-intrigue-card veto), unless he is the least influential Mil4 (or Mil5) available when there are 3 wars or a war with >20Strength and the office is consul or dictator.
Veto, by any means, the election of any senator with 20+ influence, unless he is the least influential Mil4 (or Mil5) available when there are 3 wars or a war with >20Strength and the office is consul or dictator.
If holding Assassin card use it to assassinate any senator from another faction who reaches 30influence
Always vote in favor of a Land Bill.
Except as contradicted above always vote against proposals of the 1rst or 2nd most influential faction and against the elections of senators from these factions, unless he is the least influential Mil4 (or Mil5) available when there are 3 wars or a war with >20Strength and the office is consul or dictator.
Abstain from other votes.

If PM-
Assign priesthood to each member of own faction in same order as concession distribution (see revolution phase), if possible do this by reassignment from the most influential priest in another faction.
If all senators in the PM’s own faction are priests assign priesthood to the least influential senator in the least influential faction unless all senators in this faction have influence >5. In this case, assign priesthood to the least influential senator in next least influential faction unless all senators in this faction have influence >5, continue through factions as necessary. If no senator has <6 influence assign the priesthood to least influential senator (ties broken by faction influence). In all cases, if possible assign priesthood by reassignment from the most influential priest in another faction.

If HRAO-
Proposals will be made by suggestion of 6th faction in influence total (5th if HRAO in 6th faction), but suggestions must only be made such that the proposal would be voted for by the autofaction based on the rules above. Exception- if suggesting faction contain a Senator with >20 influence, take suggestion from next least influential faction without a >20 influence senator.

Revolution phase-

Never revolt.
Play eligible statesman
Evenly distribute concessions in the following order (no senator should have 2 (or more) concessions more than any other).
-Concessions to FL
-Concession to most loyal (popularity breaking ties, then influence breaking ties)

[ardilla]

I think is a good idea from MG to look forward other things in the future, but I really think that going back to Roman Empire is too far away....[:-]

I should start going back (or forward) slowly.

IMO I should implement all the scenarios from the original game plus the other ones tested (Very Grand Campaing, Sweden as 8th player, etc...)

Also I would add, as optative, as many as possible rules from EiH, that I really love, but it makes the game (without a computer aid) very tough to play and long.

For example upgrading the harbour defenses and many other things complicated to do in the boardgame could be done easily by the CEiA.

Again, about going back in time, we could look forwar going back to 1600 or 1700 slowly...plez.....

One think that could be nice added....EXPERIENCE to the troops, commanders, fleets, etc...

It could be nice that if a corp is involved in battles could get his morale higher or lower depending the result of the combat, lowered if it doesnt get into combat (this could be apply to blockaded fleets, since they can no go out in a long time from the harbour...)

As many other features and upgrades from EiH are very complicated for a boardgame to keep track of them, but not for a CEiA.

Anyway, good luck with your work and I hope to play soon the Grand Campaing.
By the time we get tire of the Grand Camp. MG will had released some new scenarios.

[Cap Mandrake]

There are a lot of US Civil War geeks about. I think there is a market for a multiplayer, strategic level US Civil War game....of course..I could be wrong [:)]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
I think there is a market for a multiplayer, strategic level US Civil War game....of course..I could be wrong [:)]

As always. I agree that the War Between the States would be a workable subject for the EiA system, but the political model would vanish in many respects and have to be altered significantly in others. For example, you have two sides consisting of one country each. Peace between the two brings the game to an end. Involvement by European nations on the side of the Confederacy was a remote possibility at best. If the game were to become skewed on this point, it would need a different title, such as "The Hypothetical First World War in the 1860s."

John Tiller already has a pretty fully-developed game on this war that could be polished, outfitted with more recent "gee whiz," and marketed much more easily than trying to bend and twist EiA to the situation on the North American continent in the 1860s.

The EiA system, it seems to me, is best suited to a richly complex political environment and models warfare very narrowly in the Napoleonic context (infantry, artillery, cavalry, and sail-powered fleets, where charismatic and imaginative leaders who best understand the dynamics of the warfighting and logistical systems of the times frequently carry the day over sheer numbers).

That said, I really don't know of a conflict or area of the world where the EiA system could be put to good use other than in Europe during the times of Napoleon (particularly when you figure that the game has to have enough mass appeal to be profitable).

Of course, I could be wrong ...

[Oleg Mastruko]

I vote for American Civil War game. I am not sure this system could be adapted for it though, but then this vote is there at least to prove ACW games are interesting to non-americans too (if done well of course).

Roman strategic game in this engine is something I DON'T have any interest for, that much I am sure of.

O.

[Frank McNally]

Not particularly related to EiA but a game type I would like to see made is one where the player most often has intermediate commanders between himself and the actual battle. Most information he recieves should be filtered through and colored by these commanders and his orders should be carried out to varying degrees by these commanders. Ideally the player should also be able to gather information and influence the battle directly by moving to the relevant location.

The balance between how much filtering and hands-on info would depend on the scale of the game.

I would want the feel to almost that of a bunch of parallel squad leader scale battles being carried out with one overall commander who sets the allocation of resources to each board and movemet between boards...perhaps he can walk over to one board but the info flow from other boards should then be reduced.

Some of the early Civil War campaigns would also be tremendous in such an environment.

In a campaign setting if would be great if the filters (i.e. commanders) had personalities. E.G. some would be more likley to exaggerate/underestimate enemy size, would be timid/audacious, likley to get lost. Thes personalities could change over time.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Frank McNally
a game type I would like to see made is one where the player most often has intermediate commanders between himself and the actual battle. Most information he recieves should be filtered through and colored by these commanders and his orders should be carried out to varying degrees by these commanders.

In a campaign setting if would be great if the filters (i.e. commanders) had personalities. E.G. some would be more likley to exaggerate/underestimate enemy size, would be timid/audacious, likley to get lost. Thes personalities could change over time.

Frank, Frank, Frank. This was the design idea behind Grigsby's "Uncommon Valor." All that has happened since it and its sequel "War in the Pacific" were published is an almost unqualified clamor by players for more control of tactical aspects of the game at the expense of the computer "intermediaries." What has surfaced is a shortcoming in the advancement of artificial intelligence design. The intermediaries are "stupid."

Unless someone can come up with a satisfactory way to program computer subordinates, I'm afraid we are stuck with having to micromanage our forces.

[Ozie]

This was also one of the major problems of Master of Orion 3. And I'm sure you all know how that turned out.

[Montbrun]

Imperium Romanum II was an excellent game, and would lend itself to "porting" to the computer. This game has low unit densities (only about 30 Legions at any given time - except for Civil War), and could benefit from EiA diplomacy. I really like this idea....

Brad

[Gandalf3019]

I think the Thirty Years war is a fantastic place to go with the system. Obvoiusly, a direct port would not do but the open political nature with shifting alliances and backstabing potential make this a great period for a game of this scale.

I like the idea of the Roman period.

I would LOVE to see a good stategic level game of the ACW, but fear this system would be a stretch.

Jim "I'd rather fight a coalition than be part of one" Sexton

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Frank McNally

Not particularly related to EiA but a game type I would like to see made is one where the player most often has intermediate commanders between himself and the actual battle. Most information he recieves should be filtered through and colored by these commanders and his orders should be carried out to varying degrees by these commanders. Ideally the player should also be able to gather information and influence the battle directly by moving to the relevant location.

The balance between how much filtering and hands-on info would depend on the scale of the game.

I would want the feel to almost that of a bunch of parallel squad leader scale battles being carried out with one overall commander who sets the allocation of resources to each board and movemet between boards...perhaps he can walk over to one board but the info flow from other boards should then be reduced.

Some of the early Civil War campaigns would also be tremendous in such an environment.

In a campaign setting if would be great if the filters (i.e. commanders) had personalities. E.G. some would be more likley to exaggerate/underestimate enemy size, would be timid/audacious, likley to get lost. Thes personalities could change over time.

Highway to the Reich has just what you are looking for.[:D]

[MartNick]

How about going slightly forward in time, 5-10 years? You have major powers already there and can create other groups easily enough, USA, China, Russia, European Federation, UK/Commonwealth, Arab World, South/Central America, Asian Pact etc etc (just suggestions, come up with a few others)

Stuff like ACW has been done to death, how about a little creativity.

Ta ver much

Martin

[Williewhale]

I think of EIA as a diplomatic game, not a war game. I don't think it translates into a 2p game very well. So something like the American Civil War would lose something. The great think abut EIA is when say Prussia gets her butt bopped in 1806. And can still come back to win. The strength of the game is the interactions between the people. Of course were is the fun without kicking some but for a summer campaign. What other time had diplomacy and some good butt kicks? The time right after EIA ends. 1815-1880 Pax Britannia. Of course, Queen Vicky lasted for something like 700 turns! So there are a few translation bugs. But if it is done right, the whole 1800's coud be played out between the civilized world.

[Norden_slith]

I totally agree about EiA being an Diplomatic game, the actual fighting is merely the "weiterführung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"...sounds familiar?? True, the fighting is intense and nervewrecking - but especially because you are truly responsible for your country all the way. You ARE this country! This is what really is the essence of EiA - diplomacy, warfare and economy combined). Many suggestions here are (surprise, surprise [8|] )once again "counterpushing in America"... Fine, true, but not even CLOSE to EiA!

By my experience, you need at least 5 players and a distinct setup. That's it. Moreover a good number of minors make things more interesting. It doesn't even have to follow a certain war for that matter. A war makes it easier to calibrate armies and especially leaders, of course.

The seven years war is a possible candidate in this regard. Especially, as the near-mythical "balance of Power" would make total domination by one country almost impossible. Fancy leaders, quality against mass, it has many nice features.

The great nordic/spanish succession would work well.

The 30 years war would likewise.

Several metioned Roman scenarios would also qualify.

The victorian period - or part of it - especially after 1848, would likely as well.

Finally something like good old "Britannia" could be interesting. But it might be off scope. Perhaps just some period in it after all.

Norden

[ktotwf]

Thirty Years War is perfect.

[Camile Desmoulins]

[font="Verdana"]I think that you could develop EiA in many times with success, because the base of the game is the existence of 7 or 8 powers that are balanced, and any time that responds to these principles can work. Modules exist for EiA of the 30 Years War, it could make for Louis XIV wars, it exists of Spanish Succession War & Great Northern War (1700-1715), Austrian Succession War and 7 Years War. Even a module of French-Prussian War

- It would be excellent in the Republic of Rome and until the creation of the Empire (since Pirro of Epiro to Actium).
- High Middle Ages (Byzantine Empire, Francs, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Islam, Sasanids...)
- Crusades (Empire, France, England, Castile, Aragon, Byzantine, Seleucidas, Ayyubies, Almoravids/Almohads Empire, Golden Hord, etc.)
- Birth of Modern Age (XV's and XVI's): Spain, France, England, Portugal, Netherlands, Ottoman Empire...)

Personally I don't see it for conflicts of two powers: American Civil war or American revolutionary Wars doesn't have it clear. Neither for conflicts sustained during long time but without military open confrontation, of the type Victoria[/font]