another future request

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Post Reply
dodod
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:27 am

another future request

Post by dodod »

Dominance.

I think it would be vital to change dominance in this game. not only for this campaign, but to more easily play a prolonged campaign.

France should be able to be knocked off, and others should be able to go up.

This may or may not require a lot of programming. most of it will be under the conditions of losing or gaining dominance. Otherwise, the morale and movement would be easy...just change the number.

I think this allows for a realistic game, and gives others the ability to strive for more...more strategy. This way it won't be as easy for france to build back up despite being beaten repeatedly.

I realize this won't be done soon, but very important.
Grognot
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:37 pm

RE: another future request

Post by Grognot »

And turning those ceded home provinces into unceded home provinces belonging to the dominant power... is one tasty bonus, especially for Russia.
--
Not a grognard.
Not an optimizer. It's a game to me, not a job.
AndrewV
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:12 am

RE: another future request

Post by AndrewV »

I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying).

France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further.

A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.
User avatar
zaquex
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:46 pm
Location: Vastervik, Sweden
Contact:

RE: another future request

Post by zaquex »

Ive seen it happen with Russia once and strangely enough with Turkey once but i totally agree there is more important things like Combined movement, AI and TCP/IP wich I would prefere being worked at.
An Elephant
baboune
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 7:55 pm

RE: another future request

Post by baboune »

Well it is ridiculously easy to dominate the world with the current AI... Which means easy Dominance.
iamspamus
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

RE: another future request

Post by iamspamus »

I've seen it / done it [:)] several times. Twice as RU and once where FR and another one where GB lost dominance. I might have seen Austria go dominant, but it's been a while (so I don't remember exactly).

Jason
ORIGINAL: AndrewV

I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying).

France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further.

A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.
dodod
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:27 am

RE: another future request

Post by dodod »

I think the more important thing, which did happen often, is france came OUT of dominance...game became more equal.
megalomania2003
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: another future request

Post by megalomania2003 »

France not being dominant changes the game, but does not make it more equal.

In my F2F games I have never seen a country gain dominance. It is to easy to block (declaration of war) and gives so big an advantege that the other players should never let it happen - For that reason I do not see this as an important rule
AresMars
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:30 pm

RE: another future request

Post by AresMars »

I also agree that ALTERNATIVE DOMINANT POWERS should be considered a very low priority addition for the future.
 
It has never been core to the EiA Game, and EIANW seems to be all about the NAPOLEONIC WARS (1805-1815) where France is the dominant force in history...
 
 
User avatar
delatbabel
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

RE: another future request

Post by delatbabel »

On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario.

I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).
--
Del
iamspamus
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

RE: another future request

Post by iamspamus »

SUVAROV Rocks!!! He's my favorite leader of the "Napoleonic" wars.

Jason
ORIGINAL: delatbabel

On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario.

I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”