Request another honest answer

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

User avatar
Hoplosternum
Posts: 657
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:39 pm
Location: Romford, England

RE: A Great Fog of War System

Post by Hoplosternum »

Neverman,

You are spot on [:D]

The FoW in EiA is one of it's best points. Indeed it is at the heart of the game and the tactics are dominated by it. I too wonder whether those calling loudest for this have played the game much. The bluffing and deception done WITH THE CORPS is the best part of the game. FoW would kill this stone dead. Without it you are just left with the 'lottery' combat, poor VP system and unrealistic economic model [;)] The FoW that is already in the game is the best part of it. You may like it [:)] Please give it a try first. Compared to many boardgames (WiF, Third Reich, VG Civil War, WBTS etc.) this game actually as a good workable FoW and you want to bin it [&:]
Allies vs Belphegor Jul 43 2.5:2.5 in CVs
Allies vs Drex Mar 43 0.5:3 down in CVs
Japan vs LtFghtr Jun 42 3:2 down in CVs
Allies vs LtFghtr Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
(SEAC, China) in 3v3 Apr 42
Allies vs Mogami Mar 42 0:1 down in CVs
onkelh
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:21 am

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by onkelh »

Le Tondu

Well either u havent played the board game or u have missed the point it not about realism or the feling about being the commander of the franch army or whatever. Its in MY point of view about a game who is great as it is, cause of the interactions between diplomacy and the strategic aspect. So why put in FoW when u dont need it? U can play like 20 other napolionic wargames with FoW, just dont alter EiA cause of some1 who hasent played the board version. But well thats just MY opinion.

onkelh
User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by Le Tondu »

To all,

It is with all of my heart that I wish for you to have many great experiences with this game. May it bring you years and years of joy. It is also my wish that Matrix sells many, MANY copies of it and that a great surge of Napoleonic games make it to a computer near you. [:)] Now that would be nice, wouldn't it?
Vive l'Empereur!
YohanTM2
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:43 am
Location: Toronto

error

Post by YohanTM2 »

does not compute
Roads
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:20 am
Location: massachusetts

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by Roads »

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
....I beg that only common sense be considered after the initial release. The lack of FOW as it exists in the board game simply did not exist historically.

....
Let us return to the necessity of knowing well the military geography and statistics of an empire. These sciences are not set forth in treatises , and are yet to be developed. Lloyd, who wrote an essay upon them, in describing the frontiers of the great states of Europe, was not fortunate in his maxims and predictions. He saw obstacles everywhere ; he represents as impregnable the Austrian frontier of the Inn, between the Tyrol and Passau, where Napoleon and Moreau maneuvered and triumphed in 1800, 1805, and 1809.

Wasn't Lloyd an Austrian general? Sort of suggests that they didn't know the geography of their own country.

This whole argument is a big red herring. Look at Napoleon's major campaigns, remembering that the scale of EIA is provinces and months. There are few to no cases where a general did not know what region the enemy army was in. The Austrians in 1809 may be the only exception. Locations and movements on the scales of provinces and months were transparent to the enemy. When armies were surprised (as they often were) it was to the exact strength of the enemy army (Napoleon thought that Charles's army was smaller than Mack's in 1805), and it's location on the ten mile scale (he had no idea that the Prussians would be to the West of the Saale in 1806).

To pretend that Napoleon could move an army of 20,000 men (not to mention 100,000) around without everyone finding out about it is ridiculous, and totally unrealistic. Just as unrealistic as to believe that he could know the exact strength of his opponents and exactly what towns their armies occupied. The strategic intelligence was very good. The operational intelligence was horrendous. Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.
NeverMan
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:52 am

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by NeverMan »

ORIGINAL: Roads
Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.

Truer words were never spoken, at least not on this thread yet. :)

This is exactly right and exactly to the point. FoW does not belong in a game of this size (strategic). The corp sizes are entirely to large. If I remember correctly, isn't it like 1 infantry factor represents 2500 men?

It's something similar to that, so if Nap is running around with 6 corp and approx, oh lets' say, 100 infantry factors that's what? 250,000 infantryman, not including the cav or artillery that could also be including within this six stack army. 250,000 is a fairly large city in the modern United States. How could you get around with all these men and not have someone see you, or word of mouth get around about your whereabouts? It's absurd.
User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by Le Tondu »

ORIGINAL: Roads
ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
....I beg that only common sense be considered after the initial release. The lack of FOW as it exists in the board game simply did not exist historically.

....
Let us return to the necessity of knowing well the military geography and statistics of an empire. These sciences are not set forth in treatises , and are yet to be developed. Lloyd, who wrote an essay upon them, in describing the frontiers of the great states of Europe, was not fortunate in his maxims and predictions. He saw obstacles everywhere ; he represents as impregnable the Austrian frontier of the Inn, between the Tyrol and Passau, where Napoleon and Moreau maneuvered and triumphed in 1800, 1805, and 1809.

Wasn't Lloyd an Austrian general? Sort of suggests that they didn't know the geography of their own country.

This whole argument is a big red herring. Look at Napoleon's major campaigns, remembering that the scale of EIA is provinces and months. There are few to no cases where a general did not know what region the enemy army was in. The Austrians in 1809 may be the only exception. Locations and movements on the scales of provinces and months were transparent to the enemy. When armies were surprised (as they often were) it was to the exact strength of the enemy army (Napoleon thought that Charles's army was smaller than Mack's in 1805), and it's location on the ten mile scale (he had no idea that the Prussians would be to the West of the Saale in 1806).

To pretend that Napoleon could move an army of 20,000 men (not to mention 100,000) around without everyone finding out about it is ridiculous, and totally unrealistic. Just as unrealistic as to believe that he could know the exact strength of his opponents and exactly what towns their armies occupied. The strategic intelligence was very good. The operational intelligence was horrendous. Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.

Hello Roads,

Jomini speaks for himself and that is why I quoted his article in its entirety without inserting any comment from myself. He was there at the highest of levels on both sides. He is the authority and I find it extremely laughable that you are disputing him.

I will say that you blurr things terribly by presenting Jomini's quote as my own. Your lack of attention to detail is amazing.

In regards to Lloyd, he clearly was deluded about his nation's geographical impact upon military operations and Jomini gave three examples to prove it. There is nothing odd there.

Jomini speaks for himself.

Regarding the FOW issue for EiA, Matrix has finally spoken and all I ever will have to say is something like this:


To all,

It is with all of my heart that I wish for you to have many great experiences with this game. May it bring you years and years of joy. It is also my wish that Matrix sells many, MANY copies of it and that a great number of new Napoleonic games finds their way to your computer. [:)] Now that would be nice, wouldn't it?

Take care.
[:)]
Vive l'Empereur!
User avatar
pfnognoff
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 9:53 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by pfnognoff »

I appologize for comming a bit late to the show, but there is one, in my mind, important aspect not yet said in this thread. And that is French land phase double move, and British sea phase double move. If France selects to play last and then first (same goes for Britain at sea) they effectivelly have a doubled move allowance of (8 land areas/14 sea areas). If there is no knowledge of the exact enemy location, the player can't choose his best path. If you take that weapon away from the player playing France, then you unballanced the game in a very major way. France without an efficient double move is just another major power and not Dominant nation, and faces quite difficult task, right from the start.
User avatar
Hoche
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:30 pm

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by Hoche »

Is there anyone in this forum that has played EiA that thinks FoW would improve the game?

All the posts against FoW so far have been posted by people who have played EiA and know that FoW would negatively effect the game. Bart has mentioned a number of times that FoW when tested completely changes the game in a negative way.

The FoW crowd doesn't seem to understand that FoW doesn't work for EiA. FoW works well in real time games. EiA is a turn based game. Turn based games inherently have FoW aspects to (you don't know where your enemy will move on his turn.) To add FoW to a turned based game, which isn't designed for it, will only serve to unbalance the game.

But for those of you who want a turn based Napoleonic game with FoW play Stratego.
It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke
User avatar
dinsdale
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 4:42 pm

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by dinsdale »

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
Jomini speaks for himself and that is why I quoted his article in its entirety without inserting any comment from myself. He was there at the highest of levels on both sides. He is the authority and I find it extremely laughable that you are disputing him.

1) Why shouldn't Jomini be disputed? This is not the word of God, but the opinions of a man writing a book. I happen to agree with most of what the man says, but there's no need to use someone's name as though he is the only authority on the subject.


2) The scale of this game would not lend itself to cavalry recon, this is a Province/Corps level game. If you want to play operational then take the previous advice and pick up Hunter's excellent games, or Zucker's board games.

3) Take 3 examples where the failure to locate a corps or ability to maneuver without the enemy being aware of strength or placement; after Rivioli, Jena/Auerstadt and Waterloo. Neither the disengagement of the Prussians after Ligny, the confusion both Napoleon and Hoenloe suffered in regard to which enemy lay at each town at the onset of Jena/Auerstadt, and the rapid march of Napoleon after Rivoli to stun Wurmser are all extreme examples of fog of war deceisively affecting the outcome of an operation. Each of those took place in an area contained within 1 EIA province, it simply isn't necessary to drill down to the operational and tactical level within provinces, as each commander could place his enemy with certainty in an area that size.

No FOW is quite acceptable for the game, we have to assume that all the dazzling affects such maneuvers could create are contained in an abstracted manner within the combat system.
oldtimer
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:37 pm

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by oldtimer »

FOW would ruin the EIA game in my opinion. The hidden factors within the corp is good enough. Also a person can try and keep track of what they learned after a combat since you learn what corp are there and their strengths. After a few turns though those figures can change as replacements come in.

With FOW France would get creamed because it doesn't have enough corp to just patrol all of its area. If it spread out to patrol, its enemies would smash those 1 & 2 corp stacks.

France could combine and smash the enemy, but the enemy could then sneak a few corp past their borders into the heart of France. France is powerful, but even without FOW (other then not knowing the actual corp strengths), France gets challenged when ganged up on by 2 or 3 other countries as is common.

FOW would change the playability of EiA completely, and not for the better. By the time it is tweaked to make it "fair" it probably wouldn't be the same game. I'm not even thrilled about the EiH rules being incorporated though. I like EiA as it was written, along with the various erratas to clarify the rules, so changing beyond that as EiH does, changes the play of the game. I shall see if that change was for the better.
j-s
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 2:16 am
Location: Finland

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by j-s »

ORIGINAL: oldtimer

FOW would ruin the EIA game in my opinion. The hidden factors within the corp is good enough. Also a person can try and keep track of what they learned after a combat since you learn what corp are there and their strengths. After a few turns though those figures can change as replacements come in.

With FOW France would get creamed because it doesn't have enough corp to just patrol all of its area. If it spread out to patrol, its enemies would smash those 1 & 2 corp stacks.

France could combine and smash the enemy, but the enemy could then sneak a few corp past their borders into the heart of France. France is powerful, but even without FOW (other then not knowing the actual corp strengths), France gets challenged when ganged up on by 2 or 3 other countries as is common.

FOW would change the playability of EiA completely, and not for the better. By the time it is tweaked to make it "fair" it probably wouldn't be the same game. I'm not even thrilled about the EiH rules being incorporated though. I like EiA as it was written, along with the various erratas to clarify the rules, so changing beyond that as EiH does, changes the play of the game. I shall see if that change was for the better.


oldtimer, You told what I had in my mind. Thank You!
FoW is a good thing in many games, but EiA with FoW wouldn't be EiA anymore.[:-]
YohanTM2
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:43 am
Location: Toronto

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by YohanTM2 »

ORIGINAL: Roads

... The strategic intelligence was very good. The operational intelligence was horrendous. Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.

Extremely well said [&o]
gdpsnake
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Kempner, TX

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by gdpsnake »

war and rumors of war.

Does that corp counter you see have one militia SP or is it a real army?
User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by Le Tondu »

Quote by gdpsnake

war and rumors of war.

Does that corp counter you see have one militia SP or is it a real army?

Ah, but that is the crux of the matter. How is Spain supposed to even see that Russian Corps near St. Petersburg or Moscow? The point is that they're not. Oh sure, someplace closer is a whole lot easier, but to have exact and detailed information for at such distances is plain crazy.
Vive l'Empereur!
User avatar
dinsdale
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 4:42 pm

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by dinsdale »

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
Ah, but that is the crux of the matter. How is Spain supposed to even see that Russian Corps near St. Petersburg or Moscow? The point is that they're not. Oh sure, someplace closer is a whole lot easier, but to have exact and detailed information for at such distances is plain crazy.

Why would Spain care that there is a corps in St Petersburg? It's irrelevent and does not detract from the game.

If you need to find a rational explanation, then you could look at some of the intelligence which was available during the period: There was a Spanish agent working with the British who was described as knowing the position of every French army from the Nieman to the Douro through a network of agents and couriers, so yes, had Spain needed to know the position of Russian corps, then no doubt this would have been possible.
Jaif
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 2:02 am

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by Jaif »

I'm a huge proponent of FOW in games. The biggest, and I mean biggest, issue with board games is the lack of fog of war. That said, FOW must be appropriate to scale. So is it possible that spain in a 3 month period would get some word of russian forces in the neighborhood of St. Pete? Sure. Is it realistic that they wouldn't know about a few corp crossing the Fr/Sp border in the same timeframe? Not at all.

Granted, it would be a more realistic if we were given smaller scale scout units and used them to track enemy armies. That way Russia could keep a major army hidden somewhere in the bowels of their country and nobody would know where it was. But is that gain in realism worth the labor? I don't think so.

All that said, one failing of the boardgame (AH edition, if that matters) is the lack of fog of war in regards to vps/economic choices. It's been ages since I played, but there was a trade-off a player could make between the VP marker (don't remember the real name) and economy. So spend less, get more VPs, or spend more and hope to earn your VPs on the battlefield.

This is the stuff I'd like to see hidden at the scale we're talking about. Sure, you know I have 7 corps spread out across prussia, but you don't know if I've been taxing the heck out of the peasants and filling those corps, or if it's all just a paper army.

-Jeff
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by pasternakski »

I can't believe that so many otherwise rational people have so completely missed the point here.

EiA was (and is) a cardboard-and-paper wargame. It was designed with those constraints in mind. One of them is that the players are standing there looking down at a map with counters on it. They have a degree of knowledge of enemy dispositions that could never be historical. So, the game was designed with its own "fog of war" built into it, to the degree possible. One of the elements was uncertainty over the exact strength and composition of "corps."

This is the heart and soul of the game. Reproduction of this is what Matrix undertook when it contracted to "port" this game to a computer version.

I was excited when Matrix announced that they were going to do a Napoleonic Wars strategic-level game. I thought that it would be an opportunity for them to bring a fresh, computer-age approach to simulation of what has always been one of my favorite wargaming subjects.

But no. Next thing I knew, the game turned into a computer remake of EiA. Okay, I'm disappointed, but that's life. I hope I like computer EiA.

Gentlemen, it is now far too late to go back to Plan A. We are going to have to live with Plan B
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
dinsdale
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 4:42 pm

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by dinsdale »

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
EiA was (and is) a cardboard-and-paper wargame. It was designed with those constraints in mind. One of them is that the players are standing there looking down at a map with counters on it. They have a degree of knowledge of enemy dispositions that could never be historical. So, the game was designed with its own "fog of war" built into it, to the degree possible. One of the elements was uncertainty over the exact strength and composition of "corps."

Well perhaps some evidence of how this is "unhistorical" rather than assuming it. Of course it's more precise than historic, but don't make the mistake of thinking that these armies were fighting blind and did not know where corps were positioned. It's a mistake to assume operational and tactical FOW applied strategicaly.
Jaif
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 2:02 am

RE: Request another honest answer

Post by Jaif »

This isn't ancient Gaul, nor is it the Pacific ocean, nor are we talking about a few days. How do you mask a concentration of tens of thousands of men from the enemy for months? Again, if you want to say "the middle of Russia", I hear you, but if we're talking about Bavaria, Bohemia, and so on you just can't hide an army for that long.

So, FOW in a matter of days? Sure. Over the months that each turn represents? No way. Granted, some ability exists on the periphery (Russia again, probably Turkey), but is it worth the added complexity to simulate this?

-Jeff
Post Reply

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