Matrix and Australian Design Group To Bring Empires in Arms to the Computer

[David Heath]

Matrix Games and Australian Design Group (ADG: www.a-d-g.com.au ) are pleased to announce that the classic game of Napoleonic Grand Strategy, Empires In Arms, will be adapted for computer play with some new enhancements and features. Development is already well underway, with an expected release date of mid-2003.

Empires In Arms was first published as a board game in 1983, nominated “Game of the Year” at Origins and quickly licensed to the Avalon Hill Game Company. Empires In Arms remains an extremely popular Napoleonic board game, with a worldwide following and a best-selling reputation for excitement and depth of play.
David Heath, Director of Operations at Matrix Games, said “We have been developing a strategic Napoleonic wargame for some time. We always found ourselves talking about ADG’s Empires In Arms. Harry Rowland and Greg Pinder are excellent designers and I’m delighted that we have this opportunity to bring one of our personal favorites to a new generation of wargamers.”

Harry Rowland, Managing Director of Australian Design Group, said “Empires in Arms was our first ever design, is one of our most successful releases and has always been one of our favourite games to play. Matrix Games has a fine reputation and we are very excited about them introducing the incomparable glory of the Napoleonic era to computer gamers throughout the world.”

Empires In Arms allows players to recreate the Napoleonic Period (1805-1815) as one of the major European powers (Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Turkey). Each nation has unique military, diplomatic and economic challenges on the path to power and glory. For those with an interest in intelligent strategy gaming or the Napoleonic period, there are few more rewarding or engrossing experiences.

ABOUT MATRIX GAMES Matrix games produces, markets and publishes historical wargames as well as other computer gaming products. We are based in Staten Island, New York. For more information, visit the company’s website at http://www.matrixgames.com/ .

ABOUT AUSTRALIAN DESIGN GROUP (ADG) Australian Design Group was formed in 1982, by a group of Canberra gaming enthusiasts interested in publishing Empires In Arms. After success with its first venture into wargaming, ADG then went on to produce its international smash hit, World In Flames, winning Game of the Year, State of the Art, Best 20th Century Game and Game of the Decade awards. ADG games continue to be distributed, sold and played around the world. For more information, visit the company’s website at http://www.a-d-g.com.au/ .

[David Heath]

Hi Guys

Also some new screenshots of the map found at http://www.matrixgames.com/Games/napole ... nshots.asp

As always guys let us know what you think.

David

[Le Tondu]

OK, here goes.

Things look pretty good over all.

The mountains look kind-of funny. Is it possible to maybe rotate them sometimes so they look less regular and repetitive? Or maybe use more than one graphic to represent them when they are contiguous?

OMG, it's that pesky shadow again along the coast lines. It makes the map looke like the land masses are cut from 1/8 inch particle board. My vote is for getting rid of the shadow completely.

Also, what appears to be major rivers looks more like MAJOR rivers. They really look TOO wide, IMO.

I liike the size of the map and the colors that are used. I especially like how the oceans and land look. Forests look great too.

Thanks David!

Rick

[pasternakski]

We seem to be orbiting a very odd looking planet.

Austria sticks out like a sore thumb in that white. It looks like some sort of alpenglacier spreading over central Europe. Maybe we could tone 'er down just a tad.

On the other hand, the Turkish borders are a little difficult to discern from the background, which is in similar shades.

Do the mountains have to be all white? They don't seem to blend in very well.

Those must be mighty big trees to have distinguishable individual canopies from here in geosynchronous orbit.

I suppose the rivers do have to look 20 miles wide, as they have movement and combat effects and need to be noticeable.

The seas and ocean are awfully plain. All other terrain has some texture to it, but the water looks mighty flat and grey (okay, so water tends to be flat and grey - I would just like to see some rippling or stippling or something ... the sea area borders are a little difficult to discern, too, at least at this scale). I agree with Le Tondu that the shadow line along the coasts is too abrupt a separation.

In the previous screen shots, ports and capitals really stood out. They seem to be rather subdued in this rendering, maybe to the extent of making them hard to find.

Some of the area borders seem to get a little lost due to being in only a slightly darker shade of the color used for the areas next to them.

Maybe I need to see the real thing in action in order to have a valid opinion that is helpful at all. It just doesn't strike my eye the way it is. The various pieces don't seem to blend together in a pleasingly artistic way to me, as though they were conceived separately and now co-exist rather than make up a unified whole (but then, of course, who am I?).

In any event, I am just ecstatic that this game is being done, that it is in such capable hands, and that it finds its genesis in such a superior board game. I am sure that I will be happy with the final graphic design decisions, as long as they serve utility and ease of play.

Let me at it! Which raises another question ... is the release timeline the same or has it now changed?

Thanks for the opportunity to voice my totally gratuitous (and possibly worthless) opinion.

[pasternakski]

Mid-2003? Yer killin' me.

Oh, well. Do what you have to do to get it right. UV will keep me out of trouble (mostly) until spring when WITP comes out. Then, I guess, it's time to wait for a Napoleonic summer.

Just PLEASE don't sign a deal with Hasbro for the rights to Axis and Allies - Pacific and convert WITP to that, with a six-month delay in the release.

Shoot, I'm of an age that cancer, stroke, heart disease, all three, or a similar combination of maladies could at any time remove my wallet from the crosshairs of your economic scope sight (see, I can threaten to keel over just to spite ya if ya don't gimme what I want when I want it).

[U2]

Originally posted by David Heath
Hi Guys

As always guys let us know what you think.

David

Hi

I liked the new maps. The graphics are very good but I did not analyse the map as the other guys seem to have done:)

Dan

[IChristie]

Thanks everyone for the detailed feedback. It is much appreciated. The graphics are very much in development as well (I love it when David posts alpha screenshots to the public forums :rolleyes: ) so specific ideas are welcome.

I expect that the graphics will evolve either in the direction of more "realistic" terrain or back towards a more of a "paper map" look. Many of your comments indicate to me that they are currently stuck in the middle somewhat and the effect is not pleasing everyone.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by IChristie
Thanks everyone for the detailed feedback. It is much appreciated. The graphics are very much in development as well (I love it when David posts alpha screenshots to the public forums :rolleyes: ) so specific ideas are welcome.

I expect that the graphics will evolve either in the direction of more "realistic" terrain or back towards a more of a "paper map" look. Many of your comments indicate to me that they are currently stuck in the middle somewhat and the effect is not pleasing everyone.

Well, Iain, it's like they say about sex. When it's good, it's terrific. When it's bad, well, it's still pretty good.

[Snigbert]

Well, Iain, it's like they say about sex. When it's good, it's terrific. When it's bad, well, it's still pretty good


I thought that was what they say about pizza.

[Link]

I noticed that the borders had different colors depending of what empire is controlling the area. This was not the case in the old screenshots and therefore I like the new ones much better. I hope you don't change that. However the coast line should not be shadowed since that would make it look unrealistic.

One question:
Will the colored border change during play when an empire expands and includes new territories?

/Lars L.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Link
I noticed that the borders had different colors depending of what empire is controlling the area. This was not the case in the old screenshots and therefore I like the new ones much better. I hope you don't change that. However the coast line should not be shadowed since that would make it look unrealistic.

One question:
Will the colored border change during play when an empire expands and includes new territories?

/Lars L.

And on a related note, will there be some sort of color coding or other means of identification for minor powers as they come and go (Poland, Batavian Republic, and so on)?

[Preuss]

I really like the map. THe borders/colors of nations is a cool add. Only one thing sticking in my craw...The infantry icons of the Prussians and Austrians are still mixed up.

[Link]

Only one thing sticking in my craw...The infantry icons of the Prussians and Austrians are still mixed up.

That's true, but I think they are far from ready with the icons yet.
Besides I would rather see 3D icons than those 2D in the screenshot.
/Lars L.

[Chiteng]

I think its a great idea. The map doesnt bother me. I have found that the most work in the board game is the attrition after movement. If you are able to resolve that automaticly then
The game will become quite fun to play. The production system
is simple (if a bit unrealistic) I would have hoped that you would
allow a 1792 scenario. Otherwise the game becomes simply
'beat up on France or regret not beating up on France'

The Austrians never really get to fight the Turks because they are always so busy fending off or dying to the French.

[martinmb]

Chiteng,

I am playing Austria now in a 6-player pbem EiA game. I was defeated early by by a Franco- Turkish alliance, March 1805. By Sept. 1805 I have rebuilt Baviaria, gained control of Sicily, (France has Naples) and conquered Tunisia. I will be able to engage the turks, with Russian help, by July 1806.
If you know what you are doing and how to do it Austria should be able to attack the Turks with in one year of any defeat handed them by the French. Enforced peace lasts a min. of 18 months. This will give you a 6 month window of oppertunity to proceed against the Turks. If you lose this gambit then you are only where you started at the time of the French victory.

"NO Guts, NO Glory"

M

[Chiteng]

How do you do the combat??? The combat IS the game!!!!

I fondly remember rolling dice to determine which attack I used
JUST so that I could not be outguessed, but that is the closest
I can imagine to PBEM EIA

That plus Attrition. To do the forage attrition, lets face it, that is
a pain...a REAL pain. To say nothing of the possibility of
error or cheating.

But Its good to know that an Austrian managed to hurt the
Turks.

[martinmb]

Firstly, I wish to talk about the screenshots. I think that it looks GREAT. There is however few things that I wish to comment on. Link asked the question “Will the borders change colour when someone gains control of a minor?” I think that it should. However, how will the other major nations be able to determine if that minor country is a Conquered state or a Free state? Secondly, how will everyone know if the Kingdom of Italy or The Confederation of the Rhine or The Ottoman Empire has been created and what minors were used to create these countries.
I would also like to bring to your attention that Prussia is to small. It should go all the way to the Russian border. If you intended to keep Prussia at its current size that would suggest that you would have to create Poland. If Poland were to exist at the start of the game then one could argue that both Poland and Sweden should be major powers. This would make the game a 9-player game not a 7-player game as it is now. I am only playing devils advocate here and I am not suggesting that the 9-player game really occur. I am suggesting however that Prussia’s border be moved further east.
Secondly, as to my previous comments I made about the Turkish Gambit. The first thing I would do is think as to what is the best choice for the enemy that I am fighting to use. Then I would see what my best choice would be to combat my enemy should he choose that option. I would also look at what generals, if any, I had present. For example if I had Mack there I would not choose “Outflank”, but if Charles was I just might. I would also look at what my troops do best. No matter how many questions I ask myself the final analysis always comes down to asking myself just two questions.
1) Do I really want to make this a fight here?
2) Do I feel lucky?

Nappy was one of the Greatest military minds of his day. However, no matter what his strategy was it was still the men in the field that had to win the battles. That is why I say;
“No guts No glory”

M

[Reknoy]

I say go back to "paper map" look and feel. Not to be a purist, but if I buy a game that's been converted from a board game, I'll be more interested if it looks similar.

Also, the icons in that one screenshot look so hokey. I love the old chits with the ship icon and the ones that represent corps.

A friend once made "color appropriate" designs for the chits of all of the minor countries (which was very cool), but other than that I could not see making a radical change from the board game.

I may be in the minority, but if I want a wargame on the PC I want something where the AI is rich and the flexibility (PBeM, hot seat, not to mention complete incorporation of the rules and options) is vast. If it has a graphic of Napoleon dancing on the corners or a ship that sinks when you lose a naval battle -- that can go the way of the circular file if you know what I mean. Keep out the pretty pictures and you're not hurting my feelings.



Reknoy

p.s. Options for a Swedish major power? If the game is starting in 1788, what level of commander chits will be available? Suvarov? What about Lannes and other great marshalls? There is a wealth of EiA data out there -- have you guys mined everything?

[sandy]

I totally agree with Reknoy's post. I would have been quite happpy if the PC game looked liked the map one, after all it was not the colours and graphics that made the game so good.

What will make this game excellent, and even appeal to other less specialised gamers, say Civ 1, 2 and 3 for example is depth.

What I mean by this is the ability to play with different options, times, objectives, rules, forces etc. The AI must be reasonable, as it was often a problem for myself and a group of friends to play this game with any more than 4 people.

All four of us still talk about how great it would be if there was a PC version so please, take the game and make it better by adding touches here and there, plus making use of the PCs ability to work out the morale, costs etc.

Lastly, it would even be a nice touch to allow say on a hot seat game, for manual die rolls, it could be quite easy to program this.

The map need not be green, it could easily be white like the original or perhaps use light gray or something, and each nations provinces are completly coloured blue, red etc not just the borders. Someone mention the Austrian border standing out like a sore thumb, seriously- it does stick out too much. It needs toned down.

Anyway, please please please don't try and spend too much time on 3d icons or animation or daft battle sounds- I think we all would prefer you spent your precious time on gameplay, after all this is not going to be a 3D shoot em up, if I wanted great graphics I would get an X-box or PS2.

THanks to anyone taking the time to read this

[Le Tondu]

Why not make the map (and it's components) be so we can modify them with our own mods?

That way, folks can have their map look any way they want. Everyone can be happy. Wow, what a concept!

Mods are always nice.