Differences to board game

[arehb]

Hi all, haven't posted here before and don't really know alot about the game.

Is there a thread or resource that lists the differences between the computer game and the board game?

[Mardonius]

Hello Arehb:

No one particular thread but there are many references to differences throught these forums. Many are unforeseen until noticed. Also, this game was originally modelled on the Empires in Harm version 3.0 variant of the Empires in Arms game. So there are many differences...some subtle or inconseqential and others stark. I have been playing for about 16 months now and still stumble upon differnces I had not picked up on previously.
Take a look at the Mantis Threads (see how to report a bug). There there is a category called rules deviation. Probably quite a few differences report there, though some may be fixed.

Biggest difference, in my opinion, is no combined movement... folks loan units to each other. Plus that the map is different.

best
Mardonius

[Marshall Ellis]

I would say that Mardonius is spot on. Combined movement (IMO) is the biggest difference. Loaning units to other MPs was to be our substitute but it is has created its own set of challenges.

[Dancing Bear]

There's a lot less annoying accounting in the Matrix game, which is very good.

It is presently a little hard to see what every one else is doing, because corps seems to disappear from one location and re-appear in another, meaning you have to spend much more time studying the game map, which is not like the board game where you saw what everyone else was doing. Lastly, if you are playing the PBEM game, the pace is real slow. Hopefully, there'l be fixes to these last two points soon.

[ndrose]

If you set "see AI moves" you can watch what everyone else is doing.

[StCyr]

ORIGINAL: arehb

Hi all, haven't posted here before and don't really know alot about the game.

Is there a thread or resource that lists the differences between the computer game and the board game?

This one is just pain.

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: arehb

Hi all, haven't posted here before and don't really know alot about the game.

Is there a thread or resource that lists the differences between the computer game and the board game?

As soon as you change the Medium in which something was originally made, that in itself changes any subject matter.

Examples: Lord of the Rings from Book format to 3 part Movie.
Harry Potter books.
You cannot compare Books to movies. Imagine sitting through a blow by blow account of the book in a movie, it just cant be practically done.

Because the manner is which it is presented is differant, they are 2 differant mediums of presenting a story.

The same happened with EIA or whatever, from a board game, to a PC Game the medium of presenting this game will be inherantly differant in a PC Version

I just wish people would get over the fact

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

ORIGINAL: arehb

Hi all, haven't posted here before and don't really know alot about the game.

Is there a thread or resource that lists the differences between the computer game and the board game?

As soon as you change the Medium in which something was originally made, that in itself changes any subject matter.

Examples: Lord of the Rings from Book format to 3 part Movie.
Harry Potter books.
You cannot compare Books to movies. Imagine sitting through a blow by blow account of the book in a movie, it just cant be practically done.

Because the manner is which it is presented is differant, they are 2 differant mediums of presenting a story.

The same happened with EIA or whatever, from a board game, to a PC Game the medium of presenting this game will be inherantly differant in a PC Version

I just wish people would get over the fact

I TOTALLY disagree with this analogy... it's poor at best.

Matrix COULD have made a faithful port of this game, there's no reason it couldn't have, they just CHOSE NOT TO DO IT!!!

IF ANYTHING, you might want to compare FTF to PBEM (not boardgame to PC), that might more accurately fit into your analogy.

To the OP: The PC version is a butchered bastardized version of the original.

[pzgndr]

As soon as you change the Medium in which something was originally made, that in itself changes any subject matter.
I just wish people would get over the fact

I agree. Folks who want to play the board game should play the board game. Folks who want to play the board game via PBEM already have that option with VASSAL or Cyberboard. (Why this isn't good enough, they will not say.) Folks who want a genuine PC game with computer opponents and game options should support Matrix, differences and all. There is no reason to expect all three medium should play exactly the same; they can't.

Except for the combined movement issue (that Mardonius provided as an objective reply), most of the other differences should be resolved eventually. Bugs and rules deviations are being fixed and a classic campaign with original EiA OOB and map will be provided. When complete (whenever), the PC game should be pretty close to the board game, either EiA or EiH depending on which campaign and game options you select, plus it will provide computer opponents which is an expectation for PC games.

don't really know alot about the game

Is there something specific you want to know?

[gazfun]

Well Australian Design Group has approved this game, enough said.
They had the original rights to it

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Well Australian Design Group has approved this game, enough said.
They had the original rights to it

Yup. And, they approved the "original" AH version of the game as well, even though it was substantially different from the REAL "original" (released primarily in Australia for a year or so before the AH version came out).

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Well Australian Design Group has approved this game, enough said.
They had the original rights to it

This argument is flawed, sorry.... if I was in a position to still make money off this old game I'd approve it too!!!

Why do you automatically assume that Australian Design Group is somehow the epitome of integrity?? This is very curious to me.

ADG also "cleared" this game for release.... do you think THAT was the right decision too?????????????? [X(][X(]

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

As soon as you change the Medium in which something was originally made, that in itself changes any subject matter.
I just wish people would get over the fact

I agree. Folks who want to play the board game should play the board game. Folks who want to play the board game via PBEM already have that option with VASSAL or Cyberboard. (Why this isn't good enough, they will not say.) Folks who want a genuine PC game with computer opponents and game options should support Matrix, differences and all. There is no reason to expect all three medium should play exactly the same; they can't.

Except for the combined movement issue (that Mardonius provided as an objective reply), most of the other differences should be resolved eventually. Bugs and rules deviations are being fixed and a classic campaign with original EiA OOB and map will be provided. When complete (whenever), the PC game should be pretty close to the board game, either EiA or EiH depending on which campaign and game options you select, plus it will provide computer opponents which is an expectation for PC games.

don't really know alot about the game

Is there something specific you want to know?

Good contribution to the discussion mate

[pzgndr]

Withdrawn.

[Thresh]

ADG also "cleared" this game for release.... do you think THAT was the right decision too??????????????

No, but then again I didn't get a vote.

Then again, neither did you, but only one of us seems to be upset by that...
[/align]

[Dancing Bear]

Has anyone got the time to go through the old rule book, and actually make a list of the differences? This might be helpful for new players, familar with the board game, who are thinking about playing the Matrix game.

A couple I remember are
1) not having the option to retreat corps or depot garrions into the city when enemy corp approach (maybe with the DB changes to allow naval evasion, this could be added by standing orders)
2) Can't use corps for the harbour defenses
3) having to preset call to allies.
4) Light ships.

[Jimmer]

I started, but the list of changes was monstrous. I gave up in chapter 2.
 
If the two manuals were available in text format, then maybe I could write code to look for differences. That would make it at least reasonable to think about.

[pzgndr]

1) not having the option to retreat corps or depot garrions into the city when enemy corp approach (maybe with the DB changes to allow naval evasion, this could be added by standing orders)
2) Can't use corps for the harbour defenses
3) having to preset call to allies.
4) Light ships.

#3, like the no combined movement, is probably a fundamental compromise necessary for the PC game adaptation. Certain code issues as well as the need to minimize player interactions to minimize file exchanges are going to result in obvious differences. Some things that players can do easily in a ftf board game are impractical or impossible for a computer game, especially for multiplayer pbem. Even the diehard purists are clamoring for things like simultaneous phases to help speed things up. At some point it may be useful to summarize these fundamental differences and the specific effects they have on game play; that list may not be too long?

Other stuff like #1, 2 and 4 are rules deviations or OOB differences, some major and some minor, and these might be resolvable over time with bug fixes, game options and the editor. This list would still be quite long. As specific issues are identified on Mantis and Marshall works them off, the list should narrow. The game has come quite a long way so far, but still has a long way to go. It will be interesting to see just how close the final EiANW game can come to the original EiA board game in the months and years ahead, except for those fundamental compromises we'll have to live with regardless.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

This argument is flawed, sorry....

No, your argument is flawed. ADG owns the game rights and they can do whatever the heck they want to do.

Well, I guess they can take their toys and go home.... LOLOL.

Just because ADG says it's Empires in Arms does NOT make it so, that's just absurd, how can you not agree with that??

So, if you want to buy a Toyota Prius and they sell you a Corolla but charge you for a Prius it's ok because Toyota makes the Prius and if they say that Corolla is a Prius then it's a Prius!! LOLOL, nice....

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Has anyone got the time to go through the old rule book, and actually make a list of the differences? This might be helpful for new players, familar with the board game, who are thinking about playing the Matrix game.

A couple I remember are
1) not having the option to retreat corps or depot garrions into the city when enemy corp approach (maybe with the DB changes to allow naval evasion, this could be added by standing orders)
2) Can't use corps for the harbour defenses
3) having to preset call to allies.
4) Light ships.

I agree with Jimmer, there are just too many to count, it might be easier to say how this game is NOT like Empires in Arms.