Tell us where to go after EiA...???

[mattbirra]

I do agree with Strategy...
EiA rules couldn´t cover an Ancient world game ... but i good like to see a game were Romans and Carthaginians cnat see face each other... [X(] or Greece would have something to say ...

Taking a look at older games could game a good idea to develop this new project and as Strategy says, although IRII is not the best as some things to llok at ... like meny others ... the solution ... take good things of those games and add our new ideas ...

Maybe this time, the struggle for "Mare Nostrum" could be rewritten... [:'(]

[Hoplosternum]

I think you could do an ancient world version but there would have to be some changes. The time scale would probably need to be lengthened from monthly to quarterly or even yearly turns. Plus the victory conditions imposed would need changing.

However the period did see repeated fights between the same empires, i.e. one war did not decide the issue in many cases. While there were no serious coalition wars that I can think of it's not that big a stretch that their could have been. Plus there are plenty of minor powers / unaligned areas that the Romans, Parthians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Egyptians and Celts et al can get into disputes over.

I also think the 30 years war or indeed many of the other gunpowder to pre Napoleonic periods could be adapted quite easily. Like others have mentioned any period that involves more than two major powers and has the possibility of repeat wars (i.e. ones where a single victory does not lead to the total elimination of the loser) could work.

The Medieval period would be too tricky though. Armies really were temporarty then and feudal ties between areas and rulers would not easily be adapted to the EiA system.

I hope you make some extra games though! It seems a relatively cheap way to get games of these periods. I doubt many new Thirty Years War games are going to be made but it may be economically viable to adapt an existing game. I hope you do adapt EiA (or something else) rather than port another boardgame though. That way you can make changes to take advantages of the computers power without upsetting any die hard fans.

[CSSS]

Midevel could be good, but as a rule they had much smaller armies and far worse logistical support than the Roman. So that woudl be an interesting consideration by raising maintaince cost prehaps?

[TheHellPatrol]

From a marketing standpoint i think there are too many "Rome" games out there, even some forthcoming Matrix/Slitherine titles to compete with. My suggestions would be:

American Revolution
American Civil War
7 Years War
Frederick The Great:King of Prussia

Just my 2 cents.[:D]

[CSSS]

Too Many Rome games is a great point! However how many Great Roman startegy games are there? NONE. Tooo many games? Look at WWII , of course there are way too many WWII games but every one drools every time another comes out in hope that there will be a good one!

[ardilla]

I dont know why are you looking to other eras to play.

I will look forward to upgrade the game first, even do things that will make the boardgame impossible to play, like modify moral values depending in the nation VP situation, experience of the troops, upgrade harbour defences, upgrade comerce values in peace time and many other things difficult to track with a paper.

Regards.

[Pippin]

What I have been waiting for is a decent Civil War game to come out again. CWG I and II were quite nice for the time. Simple enough so a newbie could get a fast gasp on things and jump in, yet it had enough elements to it to keep an old vet also playing. While Sierra canned CWG III in the prototype has me mystified, I do wish someone else could pick up where they left.

I found that whole morale scale a bit unrealistic at times, but it sure had a big impact on things. IIRC there were 4 physiological scales for each division to keep in check. It seemed more than enough.

[LIGHTNINGIII]

I want to play against nappy too but with the syphallis option turned on

];p>

[LIGHTNINGIII]

Well of course first an expansion pack expanding the number of players adding the kingdom of sweden maybe an expanded kingdom of two sicilys or holy roman empire possibly a sultan of north africa but defintly add the american option with a naval component although we had no line of battle ships our super frigates won 4 out of 5 times in naval engaments vs. the british and that is not revionist history. ohh but I digress lets incorperate all minor nuetrals into other plares so that rather than a mad dash for minor nuetrals we can get down to the business at hand crushing that syphalitic punk nappy

as for the tactical level of the roman game don't forget they foolishly would hire mercenaries to fight with them therfore effectivly teaching them roman tactics and stratigies contributing too their eventual downfall.

mabey the roman empire in decline would be a more applicable for these reason esecially after the the split with the eastern empire.

ohh and the big arrow thing is a ballista.
































ooh and the big arrow thing is a ballista

[1LTRambo]

I would really love to see an updated version or modernized concept of Sid Meiers Colonization. The timeframe is the same as EiA, and the diplomacy is almost the same. That was and still is a great game but has a lot that could be greatly improved upon. Please, Please, Please
Pleeeeeeesssssssssseeeeee, consider something like that.

[po8crg]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Elaborate, if you would, on the following game types (Start date, turn length, number of players and the major nations):

Roman Game
American Revolution
American Civil War
Franco-Prussian
World Conquering (i.e. Advanced Risk)

Here are some suggestions:

Roman. Not sure you could make this work; Roman era combat is different. You'd have to restrict corps to one movement point without a leader, and prohibit reinforcement just to get close. If you pick a period of around 220BC, you might get something interesting - MPs would be Rome, Carthage, Macedonia, Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt, with the Greek city-states as minors, Spain as a conquered minor without a Free State ability, Numidia as a Carthaginian Free State. I'd just blank out the barbarian areas (like the northern half of Gaul, Germany, etc) to make powers concentrate on Mediterranean dominance. Fleets are probably non-translatable.

The Seleucids would have some kind of access to elephants from (ultimately) India. I'm trying to remember how much Parthia had conquered by this stage, but adding them as a seventh power stretches things too far East, and they don't have anything to do but attack Seleucia (unlike the real world). Perhaps an UMP models them best.

American Revolution: Won't work. Two player, unless you incorporate France and the Caribbean theatre - and if you do, then EiA's naval system will be creaking at the seams. Colonial-scale wars with small army and naval detachments works OK if you just scale everything down, but there were proper fleets involved as well as small naval squadrons.

American Civil War: Won't work. Two player, and EiA needs its political/diplomatic system. Also the military model is all wrong, given the huge advantage to the defense.

Franco-Prussian: Well, a two-player scenario might work, but you really want a CG covering the 1854-1878 period. MPs are the same as 1805-1815, except for swapping Spain for Piedmont/Italy. A four-player Germany/France/Austria/Italy CG (covering 1859-1871) exists, and I wrote a draft expansion to seven with Turkey, GB and Russia added in. Army sizes are different, but probably not well-enough used to really change things - apart from fiddling with the chit chart, of course. Long defensive lines, used well, is characteristic of very few battles, unlike the ACW in the same period. You need some better revolt rules, to completely debilitate Russia when the Poles revolt.

Other periods the system will work with:

French Revolutionary wars, 1792-1802. Take your pick of the many good CGs covering this period, including EiH.

War of the Austrian Succession 1739-1748 and Seven Years' War 1756-1763. Usual seven majors, possibly plus Poland and Sweden, though I think those two (and Spain in the 7YW) are better as UMPs, since they were very passive and you need to stop them trying too much. Plus, they're too fragile to be fun to play.

The War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1714) is possible - for that matter, so is the Nine Years' War (1689-1697). The Great North War (1700-1721) gives you an option for an eleven-player game: England (with Scotland as a Free State, I guess), France, two Spains, Austria, Prussia, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Russia, Turkey. Sieges are harder in this period; so are blockades, and also smaller armies can more easily hide in (fortified) cities.

Go any earlier and armies are too small for the EiA Corps system to work - what you have is just an army, which pretty much stays concentrated about a leader; also the depot supply system is new in the late seventeenth century. If you look at the devastation of the Thirty Years' War, everything is run by forage supply and they wreck the areas they forage in.

[rotor911]

Franco-Prussian: Well, a two-player scenario might work, but you really want a CG covering the 1854-1878 period. MPs are the same as 1805-1815, except for swapping Spain for Piedmont/Italy. A four-player Germany/France/Austria/Italy CG (covering 1859-1871) exists, and I wrote a draft expansion to seven with Turkey, GB and Russia added in. Army sizes are different, but probably not well-enough used to really change things - apart from fiddling with the chit chart, of course. Long defensive lines, used well, is characteristic of very few battles, unlike the ACW in the same period. You need some better revolt rules, to completely debilitate Russia when the Poles revolt.

Yes, a game about the European wars in this period would be great but what would be greater imo would be to include also the USA ! : there could have involvment of both Britain and France in the ACW if I recall correctly, there was a french military intervention in Mexico (1864) which was vigorously condemned by the Usa and could have degenerated in American intervention. Also the race for colonization had begun (India, North Africa), it already played a role in european politics and caused important conflicts by itself (revolt of the cipayes in 1857). I think the mechanics of the game would work well for all the part (Europe, ACW, India) but, of course, that the scales would have to change. Several maps then, each one with its own scale.
Maybe it reminds you of something. Maybe such a game could be called... Empires in Flames [:)]

[sol_invictus]

Rome would be a perfect era! Its got it all. Thirty Years War or the Wars of the Austrian Succession would also work nicely. Would love the see Prussia at the top of her game. As someone said earlier; modeling the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine diplomacy that would involve could be problematic.

[fjbn]

About port blockade, it was a brit invention in the seven years war, in fact, it was introduced in 1759 and it was the key to GB success, because french fleets were blockaded and GB could send small fleets with corps to Canada, india, etc. So it could be introduced in a seven years war scenario, not before.

[Sigurd Jorsalfare]

ORIGINAL: Norden

What about the "30 years war". It's pretty much perfect for this kind of wargame with long peaceperiods in between.

Norden

Agree

[BoerWar]

The reformation - you guys should buy the rights to SPI's A Mighty Fortress (1977). You could probably use this engine as a spinoff.

[Roads]

I like parts of "Mighty Fortress". The religious stuff, in particular is nicely done, and the HRE is handled in a not entirely ridiculous fashion. But the game has stacking limits that are simply absurd, and wide front wars across Hungary, Germany and France is an apallingly bad representation of the era. Allow unlimited stacking and I think the game would fall aprt because the force structures of the powers are fixed.

In fact that's the problem for using the EiA system for any pre-Revolutionary war period. Before 1792 there really wasn't any problem with havign all your troops in one place. Army sizes were limited by logisitics, and generals always kept their armies together. It wasn't until the much larger armies of Revolutionary France that armies (or corps) were dispersed and then concentrated for battle. And the cost of keeping all of your corps in one province is a pretty key part to EiA.

Well that's my opinion anyway.

[ravinhood]

I would prefer to see this engine used in the Ancients period of time, from the beginnings of Rome to the Greek states and Persian Empire. Also the American Civil War. There's really yet to be a good operational type Civl War game that I've played.

I'm looking forward to this one, reminds me of "War & Peace" by Avalon Hill, at least it's close to a board wargame, I'm sick of fancy graphics 3D wargames that are just crap and mere eye candy and no real wargame.

[1LTRambo]

Actually, EiA was also released by AH. You should pick up a copy, it's better.