Has everyone left or is it just me?

[NeverMan]

Have most of the people that were here last year left or is it just me?

I really hope that Matrix can make this game come out by July. I know that's REALLY far away, but later is better than never I guess. I hate to see such a small company put so many resources into one game and then not get a good return.

[sol_invictus]

I check in twice a day. Fortunately, we have Bull Run, Guns of August, RTW, and AGW to take our minds off of EiA. I can probably wait till summer for it; but any later will threaten my sanity.

[pasternakski]

The guys at my club say they won't buy this, because they would rather see a computer version of AH's "War and Peace," which we all consider to be a superior boardgame on the subject.

[Pippin]

Have most of the people that were here last year left or is it just me?

I like to keep quiet in the background unless we going to argue about strategies...

[mattcooper5]

no man, we're still here. i check this forum at least once a day, and i don't post. i'm sure there are a lot more out there like me.

shoot, i've only got a mac and i'm gonna buy this game. (gonna hafta "borrow" my gf's PC! )

[Regeurk]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

The guys at my club say they won't buy this, because they would rather see a computer version of AH's "War and Peace," which we all consider to be a superior boardgame on the subject.

Having played copious amounts of both EiA and WaP, I must respectfully disagree with you. They both happen to be my two favorite games, but WaP is simplistic compared to EiA, and, to my mind, therefore, inferior.

Aside from more flexible diplomacy, the presence of Turkey, and other "big" things, the single feature that makes EiA so superior and preferable, in my opinion, is the percentage-based combat system. War and Peace uses the old-fashioned "odds" (i.e. 1-1, 3-2, 2-1, etc.) system, which leads to somebody searching around for that extra elusive factor in order to take a battle from 3-2 to 2-1 odds. If you don't achieve that 2-1, essentially the factors in the stack that are in excess of 3-2 are wasted. In EiA, every single factor counts, because losses are inflicted as a percentage of the opposite army's factors. When I first discovered EiA's percentage-based combat, the "odds" system appeared so archaic that I found myself almost unable to play a game that employed it anymore. I dropped AH's 1776 at about that time, too, which had been a staple of my gaming repertoire. EiA became almost the only table-top game I played anymore.

Just curious, are there anyother wargames (computer or table-top) that employ something similar to EiA's percentage-based combat? When I first discovered it, I predicted it would only be a matter of time before all games moved to it, and the "odds-based" combat would disappear as a relic of the past. Apparently I was wrong![&:]

Respectfully (but adamantly[:)]) submitted.

[sol_invictus]

I have never played EiA but I have played WaP quite alot. I would love to see a pc version of that classic. Frank Hunter was looking at making something along those lines until Tiller dropped the hammer on him. I am continually dismayed that more Civil War and Napoleonic Wars grand strategy games are not produced.

[1LTRambo]

No, I'm still here and even though I just started posting this summer, I have been monitoring the site since early 2003. As far as I'm concerned, I am very willing to wait for cEiA as long as the program is fully functional and bug-less.

[donkuchi19]

ORIGINAL: Regeurk

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

The guys at my club say they won't buy this, because they would rather see a computer version of AH's "War and Peace," which we all consider to be a superior boardgame on the subject.

Having played copious amounts of both EiA and WaP, I must respectfully disagree with you. They both happen to be my two favorite games, but WaP is simplistic compared to EiA, and, to my mind, therefore, inferior.

Aside from more flexible diplomacy, the presence of Turkey, and other "big" things, the single feature that makes EiA so superior and preferable, in my opinion, is the percentage-based combat system. War and Peace uses the old-fashioned "odds" (i.e. 1-1, 3-2, 2-1, etc.) system, which leads to somebody searching around for that extra elusive factor in order to take a battle from 3-2 to 2-1 odds. If you don't achieve that 2-1, essentially the factors in the stack that are in excess of 3-2 are wasted. In EiA, every single factor counts, because losses are inflicted as a percentage of the opposite army's factors. When I first discovered EiA's percentage-based combat, the "odds" system appeared so archaic that I found myself almost unable to play a game that employed it anymore. I dropped AH's 1776 at about that time, too, which had been a staple of my gaming repertoire. EiA became almost the only table-top game I played anymore.

Just curious, are there anyother wargames (computer or table-top) that employ something similar to EiA's percentage-based combat? When I first discovered it, I predicted it would only be a matter of time before all games moved to it, and the "odds-based" combat would disappear as a relic of the past. Apparently I was wrong![&:]

Respectfully (but adamantly[:)]) submitted.

The only other place that I have seen the percentages used are in table top wargaming with figures. I like using Charles Grant's rules from the 18th century to figure losses in my Napoleonic wargames. (each group of six figures has a percentage chance to inflict losses of up to 3 figures based on a dice roll, range, morale, first shot, and other variables that aren't to hard to keep track of once you get used to it.)

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Regeurk

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

The guys at my club say they won't buy this, because they would rather see a computer version of AH's "War and Peace," which we all consider to be a superior boardgame on the subject.

Having played copious amounts of both EiA and WaP, I must respectfully disagree with you. They both happen to be my two favorite games, but WaP is simplistic compared to EiA, and, to my mind, therefore, inferior.

You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with about three-fourths of the membership of a wargaming club.

And it's not really a disagreement, just a matter of taste. W&P gets a lot more play here than EiA because it has a more operational "feel" due to the hexgrid, leader rules, and quantification of strength points into counters.

The primary rap on EiA? "Too abstract."

[simone.donnini]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with about three-fourths of the membership of a wargaming club.

And it's not really a disagreement, just a matter of taste. W&P gets a lot more play here than EiA because it has a more operational "feel" due to the hexgrid, leader rules, and quantification of strength points into counters.

The primary rap on EiA? "Too abstract."

Its a matter of taste of course, both games are good, but I too like the strategic level of EiA. In war and peace the campaign rules are unplayable.

[pasternakski]

Do you have the game's revised rules? If not, they are available at various places on the Internet.

One thing that counts against W&P is that the map is static while the political situation is fluid. This could be addressed in a computer version very easily. Other than that, we have no difficulty playing 1805-1815 games all the time.

[Kikka]

You ought to look into Cyberboard and other computer PBEM versions of W&P. All the fun of the original and no counters to sneeze into oblivion!

Actually my dream of a computer game would be a la TSR La Grande Armee system for the operational/strategic, with a revised combat system (original was a DRAG) and optional jump to a tactical map for the actual battles. I've actually been tinkering with doing this, but programming, even with some of the SDLs and GDKs is still murder.[X(]

If we had the option to port EIA's battles into a computer module tactical map for the battlefield resolution..we'd have the holy grail[&o] It wouldn't even have to be 3D!

Cosacks 2 holds out to be this, but I'm guessing it will be a heck of a fun RTS GAME based on the Napoleonic Wars, but a poor SIMULATION, aka wargame.

[Regeurk]

Say -- I'm curious where you're from. [:)] I'd send you a private e-mail, but it's not possible with your forum listing. You can reply to me privately. I'd love to find a group like yours that plays Napoleonics (even W&P!! -- as I said, it's my 2nd favorite game!) all the time!

Lonely in Denver.

[CICERON]

ORIGINAL: Kikka

You ought to look into Cyberboard and other computer PBEM versions of W&P. All the fun of the original and no counters to sneeze into oblivion!

Actually my dream of a computer game would be a la TSR La Grande Armee system for the operational/strategic, with a revised combat system (original was a DRAG) and optional jump to a tactical map for the actual battles. I've actually been tinkering with doing this, but programming, even with some of the SDLs and GDKs is still murder.[X(]

If we had the option to port EIA's battles into a computer module tactical map for the battlefield resolution..we'd have the holy grail[&o] It wouldn't even have to be 3D!

Cosacks 2 holds out to be this, but I'm guessing it will be a heck of a fun RTS GAME based on the Napoleonic Wars, but a poor SIMULATION, aka wargame.

For the best napoleonic tactical combat system you should have a look there[8D]...

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: Kikka

You ought to look into Cyberboard and other computer PBEM versions of W&P. All the fun of the original and no counters to sneeze into oblivion!

Actually my dream of a computer game would be a la TSR La Grande Armee system for the operational/strategic, with a revised combat system (original was a DRAG) and optional jump to a tactical map for the actual battles. I've actually been tinkering with doing this, but programming, even with some of the SDLs and GDKs is still murder.[X(]

If we had the option to port EIA's battles into a computer module tactical map for the battlefield resolution..we'd have the holy grail[&o] It wouldn't even have to be 3D!

Cosacks 2 holds out to be this, but I'm guessing it will be a heck of a fun RTS GAME based on the Napoleonic Wars, but a poor SIMULATION, aka wargame.

Actually myself and mates are going to use this PC EiA for the Campaign System and use Cossacks2 for the battles with editor & mods. I know what you are saying But Cossacks2 wont have anything available for multiplayer in the same genre.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Kikka

You ought to look into Cyberboard and other computer PBEM versions of W&P. All the fun of the original and no counters to sneeze into oblivion!

We have no interest in PBEM, because we provide plenty of competition among our own group.

[CICERON]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

ORIGINAL: Kikka

You ought to look into Cyberboard and other computer PBEM versions of W&P. All the fun of the original and no counters to sneeze into oblivion!

Actually my dream of a computer game would be a la TSR La Grande Armee system for the operational/strategic, with a revised combat system (original was a DRAG) and optional jump to a tactical map for the actual battles. I've actually been tinkering with doing this, but programming, even with some of the SDLs and GDKs is still murder.[X(]

If we had the option to port EIA's battles into a computer module tactical map for the battlefield resolution..we'd have the holy grail[&o] It wouldn't even have to be 3D!

Cosacks 2 holds out to be this, but I'm guessing it will be a heck of a fun RTS GAME based on the Napoleonic Wars, but a poor SIMULATION, aka wargame.

Actually myself and mates are going to use this PC EiA for the Campaign System and use Cossacks2 for the battles with editor & mods. I know what you are saying But Cossacks2 wont have anything available for multiplayer in the same genre.

Histwar "les Gognards" will allow muti-play: 3 vs 3![:D]

[simone.donnini]

Nice title, but... realease date?

[CICERON]

It must be released on Spring 2005, as EiA.... As far as i know!