Is this game worth buying?

[Didz]

Simple question. Is this game worth buying?

This game looks good. PBEM options. But I've been burned by Matrix before with Uncommon Valour so I'm looking for any feedback from someone who has bought this game.

Is it really a strategic level Napoleonic Game?
Does it work (memories of N1813)?
Is it challenging?

[denisonh]

Burned by UV?

I have been playing UV steady for two years, and can safely say it is easily one of the best games I have ever purchased.

So what are your expectations? It would be hard to answer your question without an idea of why you got "burned" by UV, and what exactly you expect from computer EiA.

ORIGINAL: Didz

Simple question. Is this game worth buying?

This game looks good. PBEM options. But I've been burned by Matrix before with Uncommon Valour so I'm looking for any feedback from someone who has bought this game.

Is it really a strategic level Napoleonic Game?
Does it work (memories of N1813)?
Is it challenging?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Didz

Simple question. Is this game worth buying?

This game looks good. PBEM options. But I've been burned by Matrix before with Uncommon Valour so I'm looking for any feedback from someone who has bought this game.

Is it really a strategic level Napoleonic Game?
Does it work (memories of N1813)?
Is it challenging?

You might want to note that the game has not yet been released.

It is a computer version of the old paper-and-cardboard game Empires in Arms. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with that game before coming to a conclusion about whether to buy this.

You are not likely to find a friendly audience here for your comments about being "burned" by Uncommon Valor.

[Le Tondu]

Simple question. Is this game worth buying?

ANSWER : Probably. It is Napoleonic afterall. [:)]

This game looks good. PBEM options. But I've been burned by Matrix before with Uncommon Valour so I'm looking for any feedback from someone who has bought this game.

Is it really a strategic level Napoleonic Game?

ANSWER : My answer is that is will be to a certain extent. User pasternakski hit it right on the nail when he said that "It is a computer version of the old paper-and-cardboard game Empires in Arms..... " With that said, every player will be able to know the exact location of EVERY land and sea unit on the map -at all times. That's not very realistic given any scale, in my opinion.

Turkey will be able to attack and take England (or anywhere else for that matter) if it's player wants to. No constraints there.

There is lots of room for hard-core rule lawyering. Just take a closer look at this discussion board to see what I mean. Don't forget chapter and verse.

Another idiosyncrasy is that England and France will be able to have other nation's units lent to them and they will receive the bonuses for movement that the regular French and English units receive. Not very realistic either, IMO.

Does it work (memories of N1813)?

ANSWER : So far it is still in testing. They say that some success is being experienced and some things are being worked out. We have to wait and see and keep our fingers crossed.

Is it challenging?

ANSWER : My take is that it will be as challenging as the other players playing against you will make it. Now if I remember correctly, the game won't initially support a multiplayer mode. Please. Someone correct me if I am wrong there. Further upgrades have been promised that may or may not include some undisclosed Empire-in-Harm rules.

In my opinion, if players agree beforehand to constrain themselves in certain ways and play historically, then it might be a great game experience.

Rick

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

[pfnognoff]

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu

Simple question. Is this game worth buying?

ANSWER : Probably. It is Napoleonic afterall. [:)]

This game looks good. PBEM options. But I've been burned by Matrix before with Uncommon Valour so I'm looking for any feedback from someone who has bought this game.

Is it really a strategic level Napoleonic Game?

ANSWER : My answer is that is will be to a certain extent. User pasternakski hit it right on the nail when he said that "It is a computer version of the old paper-and-cardboard game Empires in Arms..... " With that said, every player will be able to know the exact location of EVERY land and sea unit on the map -at all times. That's not very realistic given any scale, in my opinion.

Not true. As in the original, you will know exact location of every ship, garrison, leader and corps counter on the map, but you will never know exact identification and strength of all corps counters. That is quite enough FOW for the map and time scale represented in this game. Game plays in monthly turns on a map of Europe divided in not so little regions. In one double move as France you can move your army from Paris to Berlin or Vienna, or as Britain you can sail your ships from Denmark to Sicily. This scale and FOW gives you plentifull opportunities to make chess-like moves and nail-biting diplomacy.

Turkey will be able to attack and take England (or anywhere else for that matter) if it's player wants to. No constraints there.

In this game, like in any other GAME, every player participating in PLAY, must be given equal opportunity to have fun, and equal chance to win. Who would play Turkey if you limit their navy and army to the historically correct area? There are usually "what if" scenarios acompaniying all good wargames, Turkey invading Britain (not alone as it would be a suicide) is one such scenario.

There is lots of room for hard-core rule lawyering. Just take a closer look at this discussion board to see what I mean. Don't forget chapter and verse.

One of the worst aspects of the original EiA rulebook was a big number of not so clear cut rules, giving plenty opportunities for some hot bloded rules lawyering. Seven human beings and a vague rule equals a lot of noisy arguments. In my mind this all comes out as one major plus to the computer version, because however good or bad this EiA port turns out to be, there will not be any opportunity for rules lawyering during play. I don't think I will ever win an argument against my computer except by applying brute "Format C:" force.

Another idiosyncrasy is that England and France will be able to have other nation's units lent to them and they will receive the bonuses for movement that the regular French and English units receive. Not very realistic either, IMO.

This is one of the biggest compromises the designers had to make to enable EiA to be playable as PBeM game. The above is suppose to suplement the "Combined movement" rule from the original concept. Although the concept of lending corps is taken from the original game it will have to remain to be seen how well will it work in this context. The other big compromise is very simplified naval interception procedure which is taken away from the direct control of the player. Both of these two compromises I sincerely hope will be remedied after they include TCP/IP multiplayer mode. If I'm not mistaken they did promise something like TCP/IP as a future patch. Remains to be seen.

Does it work (memories of N1813)?

ANSWER : So far it is still in testing. They say that some success is being experienced and some things are being worked out. We have to wait and see and keep our fingers crossed.

Is it challenging?

ANSWER : My take is that it will be as challenging as the other players playing against you will make it. Now if I remember correctly, the game won't initially support a multiplayer mode. Please. Someone correct me if I am wrong there. Further upgrades have been promised that may or may not include some undisclosed Empire-in-Harm rules.

In my opinion, if players agree beforehand to constrain themselves in certain ways and play historically, then it might be a great game experience.

It will support PBeM initially, I'm not sure about hot seat, I would guess it should be easy to enable, but I don't remember what they said exactly.

Finally, as an EiA old-timer I would say, definatelly buy this after it is released if you are a fan of grand strategy and Napoleonics and if Matrix does deliver what we all came to expect after the briliant Uncomon Valor, which is definatelly a wargame of the decade. Give UV another try. Play PBeM like it was supposed to. AI isn't any challenge at all.

[demonterico]

I've owned my boxed copy of EinA for longer than I can remember. Pasternakski is right. Pick up a copy and check it out.
EinA IMHO is one of the great classics, but then IMHO so is UV destined too be.

[crenfrow]

I would just like to bravo to pfnognoff on all accounts!!!![&o]

[Hoplosternum]

Ditz,

I like UV a lot but I can see why some one might not. It has a massive amount of supply and fuel shuffling which some people are just not going to enjoy. It's combat is very complicated too. So many factors are involved that the designers won't reveal exactly which do what. You just have to figure out through trial and error whether it was the vagueries of the computer dice or the fatigue or the leaders or the numbers or the altitude that swayed a battle. Nor can you guarantee that many of your forces do exactly what you want.

If you don't like those things then EiA could be the game for you [:D] It is a port of a Boardgame and while as boardgames go it has both a complex Economy and Battle system it is all very basic compared to a designed for computer game. Especially compared to a UV type game.

But don't think the game is easy. It may be simplistic compared to UV but it is not easy to master. There are many tricks, strategies and counters to them. With diplomacy being at the heart of the game even the strongest powers (France and Britain) cannot win if everyone turns against them. This also can have a self balancing nature. If you do well others begin to want to pull you down.

Lastly it is not the most realistic game you will ever play. While you cannot really turn a power like Turkey into one that dominates Europe due to the Leaders and Corps structure you can certainly make her a major player. Even to the point of leading her armies into Paris or London to dictate peace if you get lucky and the conditions are right [X(]

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

Lastly it is not the most realistic game you will ever play. While you cannot really turn a power like Turkey into one that dominates Europe due to the Leaders and Corps structure you can certainly make her a major player. Even to the point of leading her armies into Paris or London to dictate peace if you get lucky and the conditions are right [X(]

I actually found the supply part of UV the most enjoyable aspect mainly becuase the designers actually let you play that part a bit more. The only real frustration I found with it was the inability to specify clear routes for ships and convoys. Something which would have been done at the time but is denied to the player in the game.

However, I just found the combat aspects totally frustrating. The ground scale was totally out of sync with the time scale resulting in far to few opportunities to intervene in events and this was made worse by the lack of TF intercepts and inability to influence the intelligence gathering operation or the mission targetting. I just felt that I was playing logistic's officer most of the time and watching the AI fight the battle for me. Or fighting the AI instead of the enemy.

I appreciate that this isn't the majority view but I suspect thats because I come from a wargame background rather than boardgaming and for me the fun is in the game play not trying to outwit the AI.

EiA sounds ok although the idea of units jumping from Paris to Berlin in a single turn sounds a bit worrying. Would I be right in thinking is a sort of Napoleonic period version of Risk?

[NeverMan]

I'm sorry, but did you just compare Empires in Arms to RISK?????? This has got to be the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.

NO. EiA is nothing like Risk. What an absurd comparison!!

Play the game before you go comparing it to Risk or any other games for that matter.

You also say you are a "wargamer" not a "boardgamer" which is why you like to "play" and not "just beat the AI". I, for one, didn't know boardgames were coming with AIs nowadays. I feel old. [8|]

I never played UV, so I won't comment on that game, however, I have played EiA several 100 times (along with several 100 other "wargames") and I can say that EiA is the best "wargame" I have ever played. This is just my opinion mind you. The only other game I really like a lot is WiF, but they are so dissimilar I wouldn't compare the two.

[ardilla]

Relax NeverMan, he was just asking [:)]

No, it is not like Risk, BTW, a great boardgame to have fun with friends for a couple of hours, you should try other ones before playing EiA, maybe TITAN [:'(]

I totally agree with you, I didnt play as many EiA games like you, but I also think that it is the greatest, sorry, THE GAME. [:D]

Of course, there are things to improve, but the EiH version had did and is doing a good job.

Hope the PC version allows upgrades and options to vote the players before play a game.

[Pippin]

Le Tondu, you just opened up a whole can of worms here

With that said, every player will be able to know the exact location of EVERY land and sea unit on the map -at all times. That's not very realistic given any scale, in my opinion.

As discussed numerous times, the land units are hidden. While you may see the location of a counter, you will not know for sure how many units are contained within those divisions UNTIL you engage in battle. Seems to be a well enough form of FOG for me.

Turkey will be able to attack and take England (or anywhere else for that matter) if it's player wants to. No constraints there.

Well, I have not seen too many times where Turkey attacked England, however it is POSSIBLE. Lets keep in mind that war is not always predictable. Especialy being French, let's go back to history a little bit It is WWII, France starts her war against Germany. At this time most people thought it would be crazy for any country at war with France and her largest army of the day to not just surrender on the spot and get it over with. What a surprise it was when not only did France lose such a lopsided war, but even lost it in record time! Had this not happened, I am sure all the history books would be claiming today how un-realistic it was to even bother contining a war against France and how ludicrous the whole thing was.

As they say, sometimes too much self-confidence can be your worst enemy. I have seen this happen numerous times on the board games as well, I'm sure so have you.

We COULD make rules to prohibit Turkey from even thinking about landing on England if you want, but then you open more cans of worms, such as (why can't I if I want to?) Im sure there are many reasons that would occure to actualy see this and be legit.

There is lots of room for hard-core rule lawyering. Just take a closer look at this discussion board to see what I mean. Don't forget chapter and verse.

Well yes I agree on that. But one advantage with software is the rules can be made STATIC before the game starts. Then it is up to you to play with THOSE locked rules how ever you wish.

Another idiosyncrasy is that England and France will be able to have other nation's units lent to them and they will receive the bonuses for movement that the regular French and English units receive. Not very realistic either, IMO.

Well you could also argue these kinds of things from different angles. Another WWII example, Italy is doing her job it Africa, even though she is in control of command, and it is HER JOB, she gets units lent down to her from Germany. Reading Montgomery's papers it is no secret the new divisions loaned were of higher elite status and gave him quite some trouble. Is it realistic to say the new units Italy got should suddenly perform less? Do experienced units lose experience, etc. just because of being controlled by another nation? Lets not forget (as occurs often), that Italy maintained control of command (and other things) during the African paign EVEN AFTER ROMMEL WAS SENT DOWN TO COLLECT ALL THE PIECES!

In any case, I shall be looking forwards to your rebuttal

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I'm sorry, but did you just compare Empires in Arms to RISK?????? This has got to be the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.

NO. EiA is nothing like Risk. What an absurd comparison!!

Play the game before you go comparing it to Risk or any other games for that matter.

It wasn't a comparison it was a question. I am trying to get a feel for what this game is like and the only game I could think of which has units jumping such large distances is Risk.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

You also say you are a "wargamer" not a "boardgamer" which is why you like to "play" and not "just beat the AI". I, for one, didn't know boardgames were coming with AIs nowadays. I feel old. [8|]

I may be mistaken but I thought EiA was a boardgame orignially which has been converted into a computer game. All I am saying is that I was never into boardgames very much prefering wargames. Although I was quite famous for playing Italian in Third Reich several times and actually winning in North Africa and the Med.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I never played UV, so I won't comment on that game, however, I have played EiA several 100 times (along with several 100 other "wargames") and I can say that EiA is the best "wargame" I have ever played. This is just my opinion mind you. The only other game I really like a lot is WiF, but they are so dissimilar I wouldn't compare the two.

I suspect UV is a really good boardgame, it certanly has a lot of loyal fans but I just found it dissappointing. I'm hoping War in the Pacific will be more in keeping with Pacific War which was a really good boardgame.

I suspect what you call a wargame and what I call a wrgame are too different things. I will merely be happy if EiA is a really good boardgame.

[pfnognoff]

EiA sounds ok although the idea of units jumping from Paris to Berlin in a single turn sounds a bit worrying. Would I be right in thinking is a sort of Napoleonic period version of Risk?

I'm sorry if I was not clear enough, but it is not one turn, I was reffering to a "double move" France has as a Dominant power, it means that the French player can choose to move last in one turn and then first in the next, giving him a total movement allowance of 8 areas. That example was meant to reflect strategic options available with the original FOW rules, that would be missed if an advanced (more restrictive) set of FOW rules was to be implemented. Also, I don't have my map with me right at this moment, so it was only a "colourfull" example, I don't remember exact number of areas or the correct path to make the move I mentioned...

Take care, and give EiA a try. It's not Risk it's much much more.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Didz

It wasn't a comparison it was a question. I am trying to get a feel for what this game is like and the only game I could think of which has units jumping such large distances is Risk.


I may be mistaken but I thought EiA was a boardgame orignially which has been converted into a computer game. All I am saying is that I was never into boardgames very much prefering wargames. Although I was quite famous for playing Italian in Third Reich several times and actually winning in North Africa and the Med.

I didn't know that wargames weren't considered boardgames although I do understand that not all boardgames are wargames. Third Reich is OK, but it just doesn't have the complexity that I enjoy in a wargame/boardgame/game, however you want to define these things. Please go out and buy EiA, you will then see exactly what we are all talking about here.

ORIGINAL: Didz
I suspect UV is a really good boardgame, it certanly has a lot of loyal fans but I just found it dissappointing. I'm hoping War in the Pacific will be more in keeping with Pacific War which was a really good boardgame.

I suspect what you call a wargame and what I call a wrgame are too different things. I will merely be happy if EiA is a really good boardgame.

OK, I apologize, I apparently didn't get my point across. EiA is a WARGAME, unless you only consider tactical based wargames, wargames. In that case, then no, EiA is not, it is much more of a very complex strategic wargame with much of the tactics built into the combat system.

IF, for whatever reason you are thinking EiA is something like A&A or RISK, then you are WAY OFF. EiA is extremely complex and certainly makes Third Reich look like A&A (IMO).

If for some reason you didn't know, EiA was created by the Australian Design Group (Harry Rowland and Co. ) who also created WiF. Now, if you don't think WiF is a "wargame", well then I can't continue this discussion with you. IMO, WiF is the ultimate "wargame" in the meaning that it involves great tactical and strategic planning and implementation.

THAT being said, I would much rather play EiA then WiF any day of the week.

EiA is my favorite wargame.