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

[Freddy Fudpucker]

Two eras I would love to see games set in:

1. Modern warfare (really would require GG engine).

2. The English Civil War

[malcolm_mccallum]

It would be my hope that you would indeed step outside the box and finally knuckle down to do the Grognard Holy Grail.

I don't care if it is Rome, or ACW, or Napoleonics (ok, I'm partial to Napoleonics) but we need THE Game.

Modularize the sucker and standardize to coordinate with other developers if you have to.

For instance, imagine a Matrix quality Roman Campaign game (in the spirit of EiA) that allowed you the option of resolving battles using Rome:Total War (modified for added realism). Likewise, if you and your opponents have the naval module, you can fight great sea battles. It doesn't have to stop there though. You could have a Republic of Rome (AH's) module where you could get into great depth and gameplay just dealing with the political squabbles and family maneuvering.

Each of these four modules would be a complete and satisfying game on their own, but take that extra step to link them through modularization and standardization of data.

A fifth module could be a fun mini-game in and of itself where you are playing the financial side of Rome, feeding armies, trading, taxing, and dealing with lawmaking.

What makes EiA radically different from other games out there will be the idea that it is a multi-player game that may take months to play to completion. It isn't ended in an afternoon of frenzied activity. That's the niche this fills and I recommend you follow that vision and aim toward vast, deep, multi-player, extended duration games.

[strategy]

From a purely game mechanics perspective, I'd have thought the Seven Years War would be the obvious candidate for an Empires in Arms extension. I'd be surprised if there do not already exist player "mods" for the EIA boardgame for this period.

My suggestion if I were to go that route would be to break down the scale of the game into half-month turns, cut the map into smaller areas, and use smaller "Corps" (i.e., a "Corps" = 10-20k men). And then make a global game map (the 7YW was the first "World War" and involved fighting in Europe, North America, African coast and India between France and England). And the selection of leaders is excellent: James Woolfe, Frederick II, Montcalm, Daun...

The War of Austrian succession can easily be included as a second "Grand Campaign". And as a bonus (if NA was carefully modelled) it would be fairly easy to add an American Revolution scenario. And of course, it allows for some wonderful "what ifs", since the situation is not quite as "locked" as the Napoleonic period where its everyone against France. Frederick's Prussia was not the superpower that Napoleon's France became and the English navy was far from the dominant force of the Napoleonic period.

I would be very surprised to see the EIA system successfully model Roman warfare, but what do I know. [;)]

Just my two cents.

Regards,

[Forward_March]

ORIGINAL: strategy

I would be very surprised to see the EIA system successfully model Roman warfare, but what do I know. [;)]

I was wondering about that myself....

Military Options: What would your battle chits be?...Assault?...Defend...counterassault?...Cannae?...run like he11? Artillery?...catapults? What was that Roman thing that shot huge arrows? Greek Fire for your triremes? Commitment of the Praetorian Guards? Does anybody else get Guard committal? Hannibal commits his Elephants for a plus 4 on the Morale matrix? Later, Rome discovers the trumpet and nullifies the Elephant threat? Recruit barbaric Germans for a morale bonus though they may later decide to kill your guys?

Political Options: Persecute the Jews?...Do you add or subtract political points? Crucify Jesus? Seduce Cleopatra...sounds like a gainer there. Sow salt into the ground so that your enemy can never grow food. Plunder?...oh, wait, that's economic phase. Adopt Greek Gods? Build the Coliseum? Feed Christians to the Lions and hold Gladiator competitions or suffer from riotous plebians?

Economic options? Tax?...more tax?...Still more tax? Blockade your enemy and deny Phoenician trade?...Would that start a war with Phoenicia?...or were the Phoenicians already gone?

Sorry, I just felt like Rambling....I know...I should be ashamed[:-]

[CSSS]

Another possible combination, you could give different nations different manuvers reflecting theier own or lack of maneuvers.The Parthians would have more Calvery type combat chits where as the Germans would have far fewer options but might be able to ambush? As they historicly could not satnd toe to roe with the Romans , but did keep a perpertual grind on the Empire.

One thing to bear in mind is that this is a MULTI player , Political,Economic,Miltary,Naval,
game engine. So two player games like ACW would not probably be an ideal fit. Hmmmm
despite my PRO ROMANO era desires the whole midevel Chinese/Japanese era would also be a good fit.

[megalomania2003]

ORIGINAL: CSS
Another possible combination, you could give different nations different manuvers reflecting theier own or lack of maneuvers.The Parthians would have more Calvery type combat chits where as the Germans would have far fewer options but might be able to ambush? As they historicly could not satnd toe to roe with the Romans , but did keep a perpertual grind on the Empire.

But that would make it a lot different from EIA. One of the things, which keep EIA "relative" simple, and for a game of this size - easy to learn and understand, is that all forces historically used the same formations and fought in the same manner (though some were better at it than others), so you did not need a special set of chits for each major power. Or maybe even more than one set - considering that the Romans against the Parthians would not even be considering the same tactics as Romans against Germans.


You also have to find/invent a political situation, where total victory (like French against Prussians in 1807-1808) would not result in the complete absorbtion of the defeated Major Power.

[Windfire]

ORIGINAL: megalomania2003

ORIGINAL: CSS
Another possible combination, you could give different nations different manuvers reflecting theier own or lack of maneuvers.The Parthians would have more Calvery type combat chits where as the Germans would have far fewer options but might be able to ambush? As they historicly could not satnd toe to roe with the Romans , but did keep a perpertual grind on the Empire.

But that would make it a lot different from EIA. One of the things, which keep EIA "relative" simple, and for a game of this size - easy to learn and understand, is that all forces historically used the same formations and fought in the same manner (though some were better at it than others), so you did not need a special set of chits for each major power. Or maybe even more than one set - considering that the Romans against the Parthians would not even be considering the same tactics as Romans against Germans.


You also have to find/invent a political situation, where total victory (like French against Prussians in 1807-1808) would not result in the complete absorbtion of the defeated Major Power.

In refernce to the chits, I don't think this would be a big deal when it is computerized.

In reference to the political situation there are a couple of alternatives. One is sets of shorter scenarios where it is not a issue, another is there are at least one civil war where when the faction leader was killed, his heir took over and kept fighting.

I think it will have a different flavor in the Roman era, but would still be an enjoyable game.

[malcolm_mccallum]

Actually, the issue of the destruction of nations could make a very nice twist on a Roman version of this game.

Suppose you start off playing the Gauls. You fight off Julius for awhile but you also have to deal with incursions from Germans and Britons. You surrender to the Romans and get an alliance out of it to help fend off the Germans. You are still 'Gaul' but now you have Romanization to contend with. Do you completely submit to the culture of Rome (and the improvements) or do you struggle to remain a distinct people under the yoke of Rome? Rome will demand money and manpower from you and you are politically bound by Rome's alliances but you now can put pressure on the Senate, have to be defended by Rome, and can have rebels trying to make it not cost effective for Rome to stay. A Romanized Gaul would eventually have legions of its own and would still be politicking and campaigning against neighbours.

It would be a different kind of game, where conquering doesn't destroy your enemies but brings them into a different relationship and, though it strengthens the victor economically and politically, also weakens it a bit more from within and increases the chances of falling to a cohesive enemy.

[strategy]

Just to name some of the issues involved in ancient times as compared to napoleonic warfare:

Military Options:
Assymetric forces. EIA essentially assumes that armies are the same and only distinguished by morale, whether we are dealing with Turkish militia, Austrian line infantry, or French Guard (the guard being the only one to be a little bit special). The same is not true in the ancient world, where armies differed not only strategically but also tactically. And this is without going into problems such as the ability of an army to avoid a battle it doesn't want to fight 95% of the time (unlike in EiA).

Political Options:
Political fragmentation. EIA assumes the stable monarchies which - mostly - characterized the period. In the Ancient period, instability was the norm rather than the exception, and almost every state had significant factions willing to cooperate with even the most hated enemy in order to gain advantage. For example, prior to the Roman destruction, Carthage had several political "factions", one favoring cooperation with the Romans, one favoring cooperation with Numidia, and one in favor of strict independence. And this is without even going into the problems of subjected populations.

Economic options:
Again assymetry. EIA assumes that all states have the type and form of economy; i.e., infantry costs $3 whether its Russian or French. In ancient times, this was far from the case. For example, Macedonian infantry were entirely paid for by the King's purse, whereas Roman infantry (for most of the Republics history) provided their own equipment. This is without considering that many states didn't even have a monetary economy to begin with. And lets just forget about blockades - blockading was quite simply not a possibility in this period. Piracy and raids, on the other hand, were a major factor.

I think it will have a different flavor in the Roman era, but would still be an enjoyable game.

It wouldn't just have a different flavor, it would be an entirely different game (at least if you want it to pretend to any kind of historicity [8D]).

Regards,

[Sonny]

Strategy, how goes your game? Any progress?

[Windfire]

quote:

I think it will have a different flavor in the Roman era, but would still be an enjoyable game.

It wouldn't just have a different flavor, it would be an entirely different game (at least if you want it to pretend to any kind of historicity ).

I would disagree. I think the overall top level concepts of area movement, provinces, leaders of corps, fleets of ships port over well. Yes details at the lower level may need to change, but that doesn't destroy the viability of the engine to be adapted to a different era. For example, on the units, EIA has different concepts for recruitment. The more modern countries recruit by manpower and money, the less modern still use outright feudal recruitment (i.e. Turkey). The same could be done in the Roman era, Rome pays money and manpower, Barbarians receive so much manpower a turn for new units. On the naval front, blockading did not exist as that was a Napoleonic era invention if memory serves, however it does not stop fleet interception and such which were valid tactics of the era. I think the top level concepts port over well and the differences are in the specific implementation of the various details.

If you have never seen or played it, I would recommend the board game "Imperium Romanum II" as provides a flavor of the era with some indications of how things could port over. It uses different types of recruitment for different types of countries (civilized vs noncivilized - European vs Turkish feudal), it has leader who move stack of legions or warband (similar to corps), fleets subject to intercepion, provinces subject to conquest, etc. There are actually a fair number of similarities with the most obvious differnce being Imperium Romanum II is a hex based game.

[strategy]

I would disagree. I think the overall top level concepts of area movement, provinces, leaders of corps, fleets of ships port over well.

Considering that the Corps was also a Napoleonic invention, I'd disagree. The kind of operational mobility you get in EIA (corps advancing along a broad front to assemble on the battlefield) did not exist in ancient times.

The same could be done in the Roman era, Rome pays money and manpower, Barbarians receive so much manpower a turn for new units.

EiA exists in a time period of standing armies. The ancient world wasn't.

On the naval front, blockading did not exist as that was a Napoleonic era invention if memory serves, however it does not stop fleet interception and such which were valid tactics of the era.

Doing much of anything was not much of a valid fleet tactic in the era. Superior fleets did not allow the Romans to prevent Hannibal from leaving Italy, the Carthaginians to prevent Scipio's landing in Spain, or Pompey to prevent Caesar from crossing to Greece in 48BC. As on land, sea battles only tended to come about when both sides wanted to give battle, or one side was forced to fight in order to defend some critical objective. Interception as it occurs in EiA was very unusual.

If you have never seen or played it, I would recommend the board game "Imperium Romanum II" as provides a flavor of the era with some indications of how things could port over.

But then I consider IRII to be neither a good game nor a good simulation (though it does have a few good points). [;)] A game such as "Successors" provides a much better idea of the mechanics of warfare/politics in the period.

Either case, there is not much point in discussing it for me (at least not here). For obvious reasons [:D], I have very strong ideas of what should and should not be modelled in a strategic game of the Ancient world. The best I can say is that - for me - EIA doesn't grasp some of the concepts which I consider to be key to the period. That's not to say that a very enjoyable game could not be built using EIA for the period, just that - for me - it would be unlikely to qualify as a very good simulation.

And I'd again note that the period of Frederick the Great (Seven Years War et al); seems to me the period where EIA would port most painlessly (though not without some changes).

Regards,

[strategy]

ORIGINAL: Sonny
Strategy, how goes your game? Any progress?

Check on the website (link in sig).

Regards,

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

Like the ideas and specifically the details on the ancients. No doubts that the formations and mobility as well as army quality were giant factors that we would have to represent! These could be easily modified in our engine since I've programmed for every weapon from stones to stealth and tactics from a Legion's wedge to Guderian's Blitzkrieg. It's a matter of implementing the parameters on the proper map with proper leaders and units to make this thing work!

Thanks for the input!

Thank you

[yammahoper]

A pure fantasy setting, with nations being various races? Or a pure fantasy setting, with various troops being different races? Either way, a pure fantasy setting, by which I mean not connected to our real world history in any way, were respective nations fie for dominance and political points.

Perhaps there could even be an engine that generates diferent leaders throughout the game, some better than others, some fanstatic. This would make every game potentially diferent since the Dwarven League may not get the awesome 5.6.9 centaur general in the next game.

yamma

[strategy]

These could be easily modified in our engine since I've programmed for every weapon from stones to stealth and tactics from a Legion's wedge to Guderian's Blitzkrieg. It's a matter of implementing the parameters on the proper map with proper leaders and units to make this thing work!

My point of course being that there is more to this than just renaming II Corps as the II Legion and giving it new combat factors. [;)] But enough said on the matter from my side.

On the wish front, personally I'd like to see a re-make of "No Greater Glory", which one would think could be done quite simply with a EiA strategic system, with the addition of the background politics from NGG (for those who don't know NGG, its a game of the American Civil War, but with politics and foreign opinion having a great effect on the conduct of the war and appointment of generals). One of the best ACW games IMO, but very old.

[Windfire]

Either case, there is not much point in discussing it for me (at least not here). For obvious reasons , I have very strong ideas of what should and should not be modelled in a strategic game of the Ancient world.

I think we can leave it as we agree to disagree as I think Imperium Romanum II was a decent game for when it was created and there is potential to adapt the EIA engine to the era [:)].

[Command Performance]

Well, you said to 'think outside the box' and nobody has mentioned anything futuristic yet, so.........

I ran a pbem Battletech game based on the Empire in Arms Rules a couple years ago. There were not all that many differences considering Battletech is a futuristic setting. Instead of ships, you have warships. Instead of cavalry, you have vehicles and battlemechs. Instead of provinces, you have planets or territories. Instead of minor countries, you hired mercenary units. Even the clans can participate if you want to run a larger game. The economic system worked pretty well with the genre too. The real fun was the political scene. You play the part of the leader of a Great House, Clan Khan or Periphery ruler. There were even non territorial powers like Comstar. I could go on.......[>:]

Another idea would be to make a customizable system that people could simple fill in the names and numbers for the units and play whatever era they want. I know things like map movement would make this difficult, but something like this could be made.

At Historicon, and other HMGS conventions, they have a game they run called National Security Decision Making Game. This idea could fit into a modern day 'what if' version using the EIA system. You could fit in any number of countries. This would be huge, though. I don't think the rules would have to be modified too much to do this as long as you were willing to sacrifice a little detail.

I said my peace.

[grudge]

Hey, pls stop dreaming!
although this sounds wonderful, pls let the guys first finish their original work...

I just want to play EiA with Nappie...nothing more....[&:]

[siriain]

.

I just want to play EiA with Nappie...nothing more....

...and I want to play EiA against Nappy