What is missing in the game ?

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

bOrIuM
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:50 am

What is missing in the game ?

Post by bOrIuM »

Hi,
I want to ask you what is missing in the GAME, not the program. I mean, fonctionnalities used in EiA not currently used in EIANW. It's to do a resumé of what you posted in couple of threads, not like TCP/IP !

1- Depots. I think it should be possible and cool to have a third option when arriving over a ennemy depot. We should be able to convert it. Eat it, Destroy it, Convert it. And about it, when eating a depot, should not all the corps eat it, not only the first one arriving on it ?

2- Depots again, Should we not be able to place depots on neutral minor if we occupy the case from the last month and respect the rules of supply chain ? It's now impossible to place any depot over neutral minor in any way.

3- Dardnelles. Is there any Dardanelles control soon ?

4- Possibility to add a minor to another one (pre-selected). As if I conqueer Naples and already have sicily, I'd like to be able to give sicily to Naples.

5- Possibility to not protect a minor if a particuliar MP DoW it.

6- What about single corps ? can we use the manual combat option now ? Can we add a second line of command like "ask for reinforcements" if not ?

7- ...

You have any other option missing ? Or worth it ?
User avatar
fvianello
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:23 pm
Location: Italy

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by fvianello »

1. Depots: the original EiA rules only have destroy or use. Convert implies that you would be able to place your own depot in that area, after destroying the enemy one; if that's the case, just do it.

2. Depots again: not sure what you mean; anyway, if the minor is not conquered yet, you should not be able to place a supply source depot there; if the depot is not a supply source, you're already able to place depots there.

3. Dardanelles: most of us already play with a house rule for dardanelles control, it's easy to do. Adding an option in the game interface would add an additional phase during which the moving player asks to the dardanelles owner permission to move thru.

4. EiA rules are ok about new minors creation; no need to mess with them allowing france to create the Union of Europeans Minors comprising everything.

5. It' s already in the game; you select which minor to support against DOWs of certain nations.

6. Yes I miss it sometimes, but controlling all battles would slow down the PBEM games too much.
H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by pzgndr »

3. Dardanelles: Adding an option in the game interface would add an additional phase during which the moving player asks to the dardanelles owner permission to move thru.

This could be a simple Request Access/Grant Access function added to diplomacy similar to British trade? Shouldn't require a new phase.
You have any other option missing ? Or worth it ?

I would like another OPTION for true fog of war, something the computer can handle that restricts spotting of enemy/neutral units beyond a certain range of infantry and cavalry units. This could also help the AI by giving it some spotting advantages over human players.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
ndrose
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:07 pm

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by ndrose »

2. Depots again: not sure what you mean; anyway, if the minor is not conquered yet, you should not be able to place a supply source depot there; if the depot is not a supply source, you're already able to place depots there.

I don't think this is possible in EiANW. (Can't remember how it was in EiA.) We ran into this in our Blue Steel game, actually, near the beginning: the Prussian/Austrian stack was at Wittemburg, within range of a pre-existing supply depot, but couldn't build a depot there because it was neutral minor. It prevented us from moving that month because we couldn't afford two-space supply in winter.

On the other hand, I expect it's hampered France even more. Unless he can protect the depots in Hanover, he has no supply for getting to Prussia--except by DOWing some minors.
bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by bresh »

(3) Could be checked in Turkish reinforcement phase like normal access.
(4) Is more important for "kingdoms" than for multi-district minors.
(6) I miss the option to not have those auto-battles, so a gaming group(or player) can decide if they want to allow all field battles requiring file exchanges. I would prefer if it was not "quick-combats". A defensive chit could be ok vs 1-2 corps but not vs 3+.
(7) Naval evasion is still missing, Marshall E, said he would look into it at some point.

Rest i think HanBarca wrote it right.

Regards Bresh
User avatar
DCWhitworth
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:20 am
Location: Norwich, England

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
I would like another OPTION for true fog of war, something the computer can handle that restricts spotting of enemy/neutral units beyond a certain range of infantry and cavalry units. This could also help the AI by giving it some spotting advantages over human players.

Actually I'd like *less* fog of war.

You see much less information about battles than in the board game, also I don't recall it saying anywhere in the board game rules that the corps display charts should be hidden. All the groups I've played with had them on open display, although I know many groups didn't.
Regards
David
bOrIuM
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:50 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by bOrIuM »

ORIGINAL: HanBarca
3. Dardanelles: most of us already play with a house rule for dardanelles control, it's easy to do. Adding an option in the game interface would add an additional phase during which the moving player asks to the dardanelles owner permission to move thru.
Its something that should be added to the game, not a house rule. As someone said, Could be an option to Turkish player to let a MP access it or not.
4. EiA rules are ok about new minors creation; no need to mess with them allowing france to create the Union of Europeans Minors comprising everything.
They are not ok, when you conquered Sweden, its impossible to recreate it again whith finland conquered. At the end, its France who's the winner in that cause there is no possibilities to improve minors.ANd I said preselected, I didnt mean adding Persia to Wittemberg ! was talking about Sweden, Italia (wich Napoleon owned at the start of the 1805 war, including Lombardy, Mantua and romagna), Naples,Sweden, Danmark.
ORIGINAL: HanBarca
5. It' s already in the game; you select which minor to support against DOWs of certain nations.
Wich mean you declare war against the atacker. I was talking about the "Accept control of". implicating PP. If I want as Prussia dont want France to DoW Bavaria but dont mind about Austria. I must protect it from everyone, making loose one a PP to Austria and having a freestate. If I had the choice to protect or not for Austria and nobody protect Bavaria, Austria will get it instantly.
bOrIuM
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:50 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by bOrIuM »

ORIGINAL: bresh

(4) Is more important for "kingdoms" than for multi-district minors.

I dont agree, I prefer, as Russia the Whole Sweden-Finland than creating Poland ! The same Apply to GB with Denmark and Spain for Naples. They do exist at the begining, but once you conquered those territories, its impossible to recreate them.
wbm4x
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:32 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by wbm4x »

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

1. Depots: the original EiA rules only have destroy or use. Convert implies that you would be able to place your own depot in that area, after destroying the enemy one; if that's the case, just do it.

Actually, the rules allow conversion, which lets a phasing player immediately use it during that land phase. Otherwise, you would have to place the depot prior to moving--conversion gains you a month on building a depot chain.

7.3.6.1 UNGARRISONED DEPOT AREA: If during movement a corps, cossack, freikorps or guerilla moves into an area containing an ungarrisoned enemy depot, it may elect to destroy the depot. If it does destroy the depot and ends its movement in that area, then having destroyed the depot counts as having successfully foraged for supply (with no loss) for that one corps counter. An alternative to destroying a depot is to convert (remove the enemy depot and replace it with one of the entering power's depots-there is no money cost for this conversion) it to a friendly depot if that would make it a supply source or an extension of a friendly valid supply chain (see 7.2.3).
wbm4x
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:32 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by wbm4x »

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

2- Depots again, Should we not be able to place depots on neutral minor if we occupy the case from the last month and respect the rules of supply chain ? It's now impossible to place any depot over neutral minor in any way.

You can move and trace supply through a neutral minor. You cannot build a depot there, per the original rules. Something about movement and tracing supply being transitory (i.e. acceptable to a minor's govt.) and building a depot or placing garrisons being more permanent (unacceptable breach of sovereignty)?

10.3.1.1 MINOR COUNTRY ACCESS: Any major power may move forces and trace supply through a neutral minor country. A major power may not also build depots and/or occupy cities in a minor country unless that major power is at war with or controls that minor country.
wbm4x
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:32 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by wbm4x »

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

ORIGINAL: bresh

(4) Is more important for "kingdoms" than for multi-district minors.

I dont agree, I prefer, as Russia the Whole Sweden-Finland than creating Poland ! The same Apply to GB with Denmark and Spain for Naples. They do exist at the begining, but once you conquered those territories, its impossible to recreate them.

I think both situations are unacceptable.

It's quite frustrating not being able to create multi-district minors. About the only way to get one is to gain control and hope for (or force) a lapse of war.

It's especially frustrating going to all the time and effort to create the big Kingdoms and not being able to add or re-add a component minor. I know that this has been brought up in Mantis and Marshall is supposed to be looking into it.
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by Marshall Ellis »

ORIGINAL: wbm4x

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

ORIGINAL: bresh

(4) Is more important for "kingdoms" than for multi-district minors.

I dont agree, I prefer, as Russia the Whole Sweden-Finland than creating Poland ! The same Apply to GB with Denmark and Spain for Naples. They do exist at the begining, but once you conquered those territories, its impossible to recreate them.

I think both situations are unacceptable.

It's quite frustrating not being able to create multi-district minors. About the only way to get one is to gain control and hope for (or force) a lapse of war.

It's especially frustrating going to all the time and effort to create the big Kingdoms and not being able to add or re-add a component minor. I know that this has been brought up in Mantis and Marshall is supposed to be looking into it.

I believe this was for Poland??? (Adding the option to add as conquered). That sound right?

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by NeverMan »

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: wbm4x

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM




I dont agree, I prefer, as Russia the Whole Sweden-Finland than creating Poland ! The same Apply to GB with Denmark and Spain for Naples. They do exist at the begining, but once you conquered those territories, its impossible to recreate them.

I think both situations are unacceptable.

It's quite frustrating not being able to create multi-district minors. About the only way to get one is to gain control and hope for (or force) a lapse of war.

It's especially frustrating going to all the time and effort to create the big Kingdoms and not being able to add or re-add a component minor. I know that this has been brought up in Mantis and Marshall is supposed to be looking into it.

I believe this was for Poland??? (Adding the option to add as conquered). That sound right?


I don't think so.

With Poland you can CHOOSE which minors you want added upon creation, that was the discussion we were having about Poland in a few threads.

For the other kingdoms, I believe that you HAVE TO include minors you have that can be part of the kingdom upon creation.
bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by bresh »

I think the 4) was about adding to "kingdoms" & minors. And readding, for Kingdoms it suck if you loose a province for a month, retake it and now its never to return to the "kingdom", it should be possible like in EIA to add, or readd(Think some "minors in EIA automaticaly joined the kingdom, by rule, when taken by the "kingdoms-owner".
 
This should be possible.
 
Neverman is right about there was a discussion about able to select provinces when you create Poland.
 
Oh, and I use "Kingdom" for Ottoman Empire,Poland and all the other "kingdoms".
 
Regards
Bresh
wbm4x
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:32 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by wbm4x »


I believe this was for Poland??? (Adding the option to add as conquered). That sound right?
I was referring to issue 366, which was closed because it was a duplicate of 99.

This issue has been around for a while, apparently.
User avatar
obsidiandrag
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:02 am
Location: Florida, USA

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by obsidiandrag »

I believe one of the main issues origionally was the Ottoman.  You only need 5 of the minors to make it but then as you conquer more they should be able to be added into the whole (and since Turkey starts with 2 already).  Then with Poland it came up that you should be able to select the minors to create and have the option at a later time to add others to it.
 
 
bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by bresh »

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

I believe one of the main issues origionally was the Ottoman.  You only need 5 of the minors to make it but then as you conquer more they should be able to be added into the whole (and since Turkey starts with 2 already).  Then with Poland it came up that you should be able to select the minors to create and have the option at a later time to add others to it.


You need 6 for Ottoman, but think the issue is that you need to add new conquests if possible. But also if someone temporary takes a minor part of a "kingdom" , you should be able to retake it and readd it.
And not just get it back as conq minor.

Regards
Bresh
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by Marshall Ellis »

So, when a minor gets conquered in the CotR OR OE then they are automatically added. What about adding to Poland (Major provinces)? I cannot see anything about that???
Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by NeverMan »

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

So, when a minor gets conquered in the CotR OR OE then they are automatically added. What about adding to Poland (Major provinces)? I cannot see anything about that???

It's not about "adding" anything to Poland (well, at least not entirely), it's about deciding which provinces to create Poland with. As the game stands now it automatically takes any "P" provinces and adds them... this seriously hinders Russia's ability to create Poland, since it will most likely lose half of it's home nation and there will be A LOT of wasted manpower.

This is pretty clear in the EiA rules.
bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 am

RE: What is missing in the game ?

Post by bresh »

Neverman, he didnt ask about at creation he asked, what if areas who are part of Poland gets ceeded, are they automaticly joining Poland ?
 
or Poland there are 2 issues.
 
1.How to select what provinces are to be taken into part of Poland at creation.
 
2.Is it possible to add more, after others have been ceeded as parts of conquest, or been in control at creation.
Im not 100% clear how EIA handled this, to lazy atm to look it up, sorry.
But Im sure someones knows !!
 
 
 
Regards
Bresh
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”