Empire in Arms..

[Reiryc]

Will this game be similar to Avalon Hill's Empire in Arms?

I'm trying to get a feel for this game and it appears to be similar to this game. I would hope that it is like empire at arms.

However, with such a game, dealing with alliances, politics, etc are key to making it a fun game. I hope that the ability to influence political decisions of nations is highly influential from political means...

Reiryc

[Le Tondu]

Reiryc,
I've been following this for some time now and the answer to your question appears to be that it just may end up being similar.

On that note how possible is it for a Napoleonic strategic level game to NOT be similar?

In any event we will learn the truth as time goes on.

Now, if they'd just toss us a bone every now and then.

woof! woof! woof!

[martinmb]

If a bone was to be found. We would all jump on it like a pack of hungry wolves, or put our foot on it and grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:)

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
Reiryc,
I've been following this for some time now and the answer to your question appears to be that it just may end up being similar.

On that note how possible is it for a Napoleonic strategic level game to NOT be similar?

In any event we will learn the truth as time goes on.

Now, if they'd just toss us a bone every now and then.

woof! woof! woof!

It would NOT be similar in many ways depending on how combat is resolved, territory acquisition, political events, build times on raising troops, etc etc.

About the only way to say how could it not be similar is if one uses very vague generalizations along the lines of, you control a country, there are politics, you fight battles. In that sense, yes it is a carbon copy of Empires in Arms

I do hope some more bones are tossed this way, however one of my big concerns is that with a game like this, pbem and not live internet play would be quite a drag on anything but a 2 player game. That means that some of the more interesting pieces of Empires in Arms, such as alliance negotiation and territory division between nations will largely not exist =(

I think that a game of this type, would be much better played live on the internet, even better in a continuous time setting like Europa Universalis. I doubt that will happen which is fine, but then I think a tcp/ip setting needs to be included for the entertainment of diplomacy with other players.

Can you as austria negotiate an alliance against france? Or will Russia, Prussia, and England conspire against you by secretly dividing up your territories among them and france? Stuff like this makes for a fun game beyond just beating up on a usually predictable AI.

Reiryc

[David Heath]

Marshall and myself talked about this very issue last night. We want to make PBEM one of the VERY important features. It maybe a long game.

Marshall and I really made some major improvements on the combat system... Marshall should have some details posted soon.

David

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Reiryc

........I do hope some more bones are tossed this way, however one of my big concerns is that with a game like this, pbem and not live internet play would be quite a drag on anything but a 2 player game. That means that some of the more interesting pieces of Empires in Arms, such as alliance negotiation and territory division between nations will largely not exist =(

I think that a game of this type, would be much better played live on the internet, even better in a continuous time setting like Europa Universalis. I doubt that will happen which is fine, but then I think a tcp/ip setting needs to be included for the entertainment of diplomacy with other players.

Can you as austria negotiate an alliance against france? Or will Russia, Prussia, and England conspire against you by secretly dividing up your territories among them and france? Stuff like this makes for a fun game beyond just beating up on a usually predictable AI.

Reiryc

Here in Matrix's own words:
"Napoleonic Wars is a seven player game of grand strategy during the Napoleonic era of 1805-1815. Napoleonic Wars is a seven player game of grand strategy. Playable either solitaire, by email or over the Internet. Corps level with full diplomatic options to allow players complete freedom to fight it out for control of Europe any way they want to. The map is divided up into provinces providing an attractive look.

The game moves in seasonal turns where diplomacy and builds are conducted. Within the seasonal turns there area variable number of impulses where corps and fleets move about. All movement is simultaneous with battles occurring at the end of the impulse. Battles are resolved by players both picking a strategy and fighting a series of rounds in an attempt to break the enemy. Make and break alliances, declare war, invade minor nations, propose peace terms, build armies. All of this is at your disposal as you attempt to bring as much "glory" to your empire as possible. The winner of the game is the empire that has maximized the amount of "glory" points it receives throughout the game."

So look for yourself. Internet play is definitely mentioned. Reiryc, it looks like your wish has been granted.

Sounds great doesn't it?

Personally, I wonder why they stop at 1815? Napoleon, and France could have made different decisions and had the era continue beyond 1815. I sure would like to give it a try.

[von Curow]

Originally posted by Reiryc

I do hope some more bones are tossed this way, however one of my big concerns is that with a game like this, pbem and not live internet play would be quite a drag on anything but a 2 player game. That means that some of the more interesting pieces of Empires in Arms, such as alliance negotiation and territory division between nations will largely not exist =(

Why couldn't you negotiate just as well via email and/or some in-game message mechanic? (e.g., you are playing as Austria, you get your turn and the first thing that pops up is a message from Russia offering you Silesia if you help attack Prussia) I don't think PBEM hinders diplomacy in any way.

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by von Curow


Why couldn't you negotiate just as well via email and/or some in-game message mechanic? (e.g., you are playing as Austria, you get your turn and the first thing that pops up is a message from Russia offering you Silesia if you help attack Prussia) I don't think PBEM hinders diplomacy in any way.

Because having to negotiate with 3-4 other people via email would take a very long time....

Think of it, I send an email, austria gets it and agrees with most of it but has to send an email to russia, russia doesnt agree and needs to send one to me. Then I say no to russia because of englands request....this would all need to be worked out before a turn is completed...

If it were live play then it could be done quickly and on the spot.

Reiryc

[ABP]

I think Reiryc want a game as close as possible to real-time, which he certainly is allowed to wish for. I can see advantages in both this and PBEM. The question comes back to player availability, game length and players from different time zones. If it is possible to include both, which I would think it is, I think the game can have a broader appeal to different gamers. I for one would like both options. I don’t think PBEM will be boring, I’m playing one at the moment, but is will be different and maybe not as fast moving as with internet play. Even with internet play will some time be needed for diplomacy and planning. I think with most of the mechanics being handled by the game that PBEM games can move quite quickly.

Oh yes and please toss us a bone or two ASAP User-Interface screen shots would be nice!

[von Curow]

I don't think realtime AND pbem would be possible in the same game. Think how it would change the game -- in one case it is turn based in the other everyone is taking turns at the same time. Maybe you meant online play, and not realtime? Imagine a game with the complexity of EiA and you sitting at home waiting for the other 6 players to take their turns.

No thanks. But, of course, if they can make the game work both ways, I am always in favor of choice.

[Le Tondu]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but Matrix already has revealeded how the game will be played:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Napoleonic Wars is a seven player game of grand strategy during the Napoleonic era of 1805-1815. Napoleonic Wars is a seven player game of grand strategy. Playable either solitaire, by email or over the Internet. Corps level with full diplomatic options to allow players complete freedom to fight it out for control of Europe any way they want to. The map is divided up into provinces providing an attractive look.

The game moves in seasonal turns where diplomacy and builds are conducted. Within the seasonal turns there area variable number of impulses where corps and fleets move about. All movement is simultaneous with battles occurring at the end of the impulse. Battles are resolved by players both picking a strategy and fighting a series of rounds in an attempt to break the enemy. Make and break alliances, declare war, invade minor nations, propose peace terms, build armies. All of this is at your disposal as you attempt to bring as much "glory" to your empire as possible. The winner of the game is the empire that has maximized the amount of "glory" points it receives throughout the game."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sorry, but just don't see RTS or "realtime" anywhere.

IMO, "realtime" for NW would mean a fast moving game about a time period where VERY little ever happened quickly. I would not want a game where I could lose just because my hand-eye coordination wasn't up to snuff on any day. I welcome the opportunity to plan my strategy with nice periods of time to do so. Others don't. That is ok with me. To each their own.

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but Matrix already has revealeded how the game will be played:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Napoleonic Wars is a seven player game of grand strategy during the Napoleonic era of 1805-1815. Napoleonic Wars is a seven player game of grand strategy. Playable either solitaire, by email or over the Internet. Corps level with full diplomatic options to allow players complete freedom to fight it out for control of Europe any way they want to. The map is divided up into provinces providing an attractive look.

The game moves in seasonal turns where diplomacy and builds are conducted. Within the seasonal turns there area variable number of impulses where corps and fleets move about. All movement is simultaneous with battles occurring at the end of the impulse. Battles are resolved by players both picking a strategy and fighting a series of rounds in an attempt to break the enemy. Make and break alliances, declare war, invade minor nations, propose peace terms, build armies. All of this is at your disposal as you attempt to bring as much "glory" to your empire as possible. The winner of the game is the empire that has maximized the amount of "glory" points it receives throughout the game."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sorry, but just don't see RTS or "realtime" anywhere.

IMO, "realtime" for NW would mean a fast moving game about a time period where VERY little ever happened quickly. I would not want a game where I could lose just because my hand-eye coordination wasn't up to snuff on any day. I welcome the opportunity to plan my strategy with nice periods of time to do so. Others don't. That is ok with me. To each their own.

That's why God invented the pause button and different speed settings ;p

If you want to see a game that plays in continuous time over a period of 400 years go to this website for an idea....http://www.europa-universalis.com/

Whether or not this game can be made to play in real time is not of a great concern to me. It would be nice, hence I am going to throw it out there as the game is still early in development. Plus, nothing says that NW 2 can't be in a continuous time setting similar to europa universalis.

My biggest concern with this game will be its play over the internet. I think it should be a big focus ranking up there with the quality and detail of the game. Games like this just scream 'multiplayer' for their fun element due to diplomacy. I just feel compelled to keep pointing this out, like a broken record to demonstrate that I feel this is quite important.

This will undoubtedly be a long game (I hope) but I have no doubts, that if designed for multiplayer correctly, this will be of no problem. I currently play alot of europa universalis 2 online. We play at speeds of 1 minute real time = 2 months game time. Thats 6 minutes per year. The game span is from 1419 to 1819 in the grand campaign. So thats what? 40 hours real time to complete a grand campaign? Many players are able to do it because we can save at any point in the game...plus it has an autosave. So people play a couple hours a night. If someone can't make it one night, we can play without him as the AI will take over the country and when he is able, he can take up his old country again or pick a new one. Hopefuly features like this will come with NW.

Reiryc

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Reiryc


....... nothing says that NW 2 can't be in a continuous time setting similar to europa universalis...........

Reiryc

I think that you are wrong my friend. This says that it won't:

(In Matrix's own words)
"The game moves in seasonal turns where diplomacy and builds are conducted. Within the seasonal turns there area variable number of impulses where corps and fleets move about. All movement is simultaneous with battles occurring at the end of the impulse. Battles are resolved by players both picking a strategy and fighting a series of rounds in an attempt to break the enemy. Make and break alliances, declare war, invade minor nations, propose peace terms, build armies. All of this is at your disposal as you attempt to bring as much "glory" to your empire as possible. The winner of the game is the empire that has maximized the amount of "glory" points it receives throughout the game."

I see absolutely no reason to completely change things for a second version of a game when the first version is perfectly fine. They'd have to be nuts to do that because they would alienate all of their original (loyal) supporters. I have never seen a game developer change a game from non-RTS to RTS -ever and I dare say that we never will.

IMO, RTS games are a penny a dozen these days and I applaud Matrix for having the courage to stand above the crowd.

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Le Tondu


I think that you are wrong my friend. This says that it won't:

(In Matrix's own words)
"The game moves in seasonal turns where diplomacy and builds are conducted. Within the seasonal turns there area variable number of impulses where corps and fleets move about. All movement is simultaneous with battles occurring at the end of the impulse. Battles are resolved by players both picking a strategy and fighting a series of rounds in an attempt to break the enemy. Make and break alliances, declare war, invade minor nations, propose peace terms, build armies. All of this is at your disposal as you attempt to bring as much "glory" to your empire as possible. The winner of the game is the empire that has maximized the amount of "glory" points it receives throughout the game."

I see absolutely no reason to completely change things for a second version of a game when the first version is perfectly fine. They'd have to be nuts to do that because they would alienate all of their original (loyal) supporters. I have never seen a game developer change a game from non-RTS to RTS -ever and I dare say that we never will.

IMO, RTS games are a penny a dozen these days and I applaud Matrix for having the courage to stand above the crowd.

Sorry, but quoting from part 1 of an unfinished game says nothing about part 2, let alone if it will even exist....nice try though. I can see why some people are unable to get along with you around these parts though.

Reiryc

[Le Tondu]

Ouch!

Your personal jab is noted even though I thought we were just talking about a game here.

Actually, in my last posting that you just responded to, I quoted part 2 of a 2 part statement released by Matrix. The first part has already been quoted twice by me and once by you in this very thread and I do not think it is necessary to quote it for a fourth time.

Napoleonic Wars not coming out? I'll tell you what my friend. I have no inside information, but I'll bet you a dollar that it DOES come out. This is a gentlemen's bet with a tiny $$ amount -just to make it fun! What do you say??? Is it a bet?

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
Ouch!

Your personal jab is noted even though I thought we were just talking about a game here.

Actually, in my last posting that you just responded to, I quoted part 2 of a 2 part statement released by Matrix. The first part has already been quoted twice by me and once by you in this very thread and I do not think it is necessary to quote it for a fourth time.

Napoleonic Wars not coming out? I'll tell you what my friend. I have no inside information, but I'll bet you a dollar that it DOES come out. This is a gentlemen's bet with a tiny $$ amount -just to make it fun! What do you say??? Is it a bet?

I said part 2. Maybe you should re-read before you issue forth silly bets?

I'll try to re-phrase for clarity.

Game 1 is not finished. Game 2 is probably not even a consideration yet as sales of Game 1 will be of consideration. Therefore, there may not even be a Game 2 for this series.

Not sure how long you have been around these parts, but quoting what they envision the game as in its current state of development does not mean it is set in stone yet. It may be set in stone due to negotians between the programmer and david heath, but assuming that it is set in stone due to the web page, is well, not an accurate way to judge.

Looking at the situation now with combat leader and close assault should inform you that what was once planned as a single game entity has instead been changed into 2 different games. One is now a real time game, the other is a turn based game. Thus one should not assume that because the website says the game will play in seasons now, that it can not change at the point in development simply because a website says its turn based.

Now if david heath or ellis would show up and say that they don't plan to now or ever divide the game up into 2 seperate games, one based on a turn system the other on a continuous system, then yes I will agree that there is no possibility of a change. However, given matrix's attention to user/gamer requests and their past history of modifying or even changing a game entirely to meet these requests in early development stages, I do not think that at this point of development with napoleonic wars that is unreasonable to ask that they consider a continuous time setting either as a part 2 if it will ever exist or even for the current game.

Lastly, using the same logic with regards to my concerns towards live internet play as opposed to just pbem, I am just making sure that it is well known to the developers that atleast one person out here wants that included in the release of the game. Just 'cause a web site says it's so, doesn't necessarily mean it will be so. Raising my voice hopefully will help keep that enough of a priority that it will be included in the release of the game.

Reiryc

[Le Tondu]

Reiryc,

Misunderstandings are all too common on Discussion Boards. Important meanings can be too easily missed when statements are not clear about what is being said. Sorry, but this is all of what I had to work with:
----------------
Quote of Reiryc:

"Sorry, but quoting from part 1 of an unfinished game says nothing about part 2, let alone if it will even exist...."
-----------------

I took it to mean that you were referring to the Matrix quote that I was sharing and that you thought that NW had a chance of not ever existing. Boy, I sure missed your meaning. You have my apologies.

Having a choice is a good thing and I'd say that having the choice of playing NW as a RTS game (as some would like) AND having NW be as Matrix has already announced it to be as -would be the best of both worlds. While I would only partake of the originally announced version, I have nothing against others who would partake of the RTS version.

(This is all assuming Matrix would even try doing that.) Thank you for pointing out the two titles where it has already been done. Those gaming companies deserve praise.

I always like to say, "To each, their own."

I really like TCP/IP play as well. It is the best, in my humble opinion. Having the knowledge that there is another human making their turn is a thrill a minute. The best part is knowing that you'll be able to make your turn as soon as your friendly opponent is through with his (or hers). Waiting is hard sometimes when you have a good plan going.

Disusssion Boards for games in developement are simply great. I am certain that the NW developers read them and gain a lot by doing so. If the developers of NW are anything like the developer of LGAA (Jean Michel Mathe), then we are in for something special.

We've all been waiting for something like NW to come along for a very long time. Thank goodness for Matrix Games for answering our prayers.

Lastly, can you shed some light as to the meaning of "Reiryc"? Where does that come from? Some book? "Le Tondu" literally means "the shorn one". It was the affectionate nickname given to the Great Captain by his Guard (presumably for his short hair.) Thanks.

[Ancient One]

The game should be turn based, it would be more realistic that way. Adding a real time option would delay the game far too long and cost far too much, it just wouldn't be worth it for Matrix Games to persue such an option.

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Zagys
The game should be turn based, it would be more realistic that way. Adding a real time option would delay the game far too long and cost far too much, it just wouldn't be worth it for Matrix Games to persue such an option.

Yes we all know real life follows turns.....very realistic! :rolleyes:

Reiryc

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Zagys
The game should be turn based, it would be more realistic that way. Adding a real time option would delay the game far too long and cost far too much, it just wouldn't be worth it for Matrix Games to persue such an option.

Zagys,
No arguments here. I'm with you. I know some people like RTS games and that is fine. To each their own! I really hope that the RTS gamer has some great games to choose from.

In my opinion, RTS games move way too fast and events that normally would happen in a REAL battle, don't get to happen in the RTS game. It usually is because the player's eye-hand coordination wasn't fast enough (or the player was paying attention to a different part of the map), which causes a completely non-historical result to happen when applied to a historical simulation. This seems to mostly happen for medium to large battles where in order to see all the action, you must scroll the map.

(I believe that you were trying to say something like that? Please correct me if I am wrong.)

The somewhat recent Sid Meier vein of Napoleonic games comes to mind when searching for an example of this. In them, you can have a couple of light cavalry regiments guarding your flanks and an unsupported enemy horse battery will unlimber nearby and pummel the nonactive cavalry until they are decimated and rout -UNLESS you move them. But don't be focused elsewhere on the map and miss this event or you'll pay for it.

So again, IMO, RTS games are more of a game and a step or so away from being a true historical simulation. Now that I think about it, they're more like an arcade game that just happens to have a specific historical application with all of the historical trimmings.

But you know, the RTS gamer still has plenty of reasons to be happy. There are loads of games in the RTS format out there for the buyer to choose from and I doubt that they'll dry up anytrime soon.

I'm looking forward with great expectation to see how Matrix handles all of this. From their press release, it looks really interesting. As for what has already been out, I can handle the old-time turn based games -anytime, but I really like Big Time Software's 'Combat Mission' (WW II) and what they call their "we-go" format.