Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

another future request

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> another future request Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
another future request - 1/11/2008 2:48:36 AM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline
Dominance.

I think it would be vital to change dominance in this game. not only for this campaign, but to more easily play a prolonged campaign.

France should be able to be knocked off, and others should be able to go up.

This may or may not require a lot of programming. most of it will be under the conditions of losing or gaining dominance. Otherwise, the morale and movement would be easy...just change the number.

I think this allows for a realistic game, and gives others the ability to strive for more...more strategy. This way it won't be as easy for france to build back up despite being beaten repeatedly.

I realize this won't be done soon, but very important.
Post #: 1
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 5:29:10 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
And turning those ceded home provinces into unceded home provinces belonging to the dominant power... is one tasty bonus, especially for Russia.

(in reply to dodod)
Post #: 2
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 10:05:45 AM   
AndrewV

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline
I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying).

France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further.

A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.

(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 3
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 10:17:59 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
Ive seen it happen with Russia once and strangely enough with Turkey once but i totally agree there is more important things like Combined movement, AI and TCP/IP wich I would prefere being worked at.

(in reply to AndrewV)
Post #: 4
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 11:12:54 AM   
baboune

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/1/2003
Status: offline
Well it is ridiculously easy to dominate the world with the current AI... Which means easy Dominance.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 5
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 12:26:41 PM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
I've seen it / done it several times. Twice as RU and once where FR and another one where GB lost dominance. I might have seen Austria go dominant, but it's been a while (so I don't remember exactly).

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewV

I don't think it's worth the effort to implement major powers gaining dominance. I can't recall ever seeing a player achieve this in a F2F game. (And can only recall 1 or 2 people ever trying).

France/GBR losing dominant power status happened a few times, but by that time they are typically weak enough, that they don't really need to be weakened further.

A think there are more important things for Marshall to work on.



< Message edited by iamspamus -- 1/11/2008 6:20:59 PM >

(in reply to AndrewV)
Post #: 6
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 4:25:34 PM   
dodod

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline
I think the more important thing, which did happen often, is france came OUT of dominance...game became more equal.

(in reply to dodod)
Post #: 7
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 7:00:11 PM   
megalomania2003

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
France not being dominant changes the game, but does not make it more equal.

In my F2F games I have never seen a country gain dominance. It is to easy to block (declaration of war) and gives so big an advantege that the other players should never let it happen - For that reason I do not see this as an important rule

(in reply to dodod)
Post #: 8
RE: another future request - 1/11/2008 7:42:06 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
I also agree that ALTERNATIVE DOMINANT POWERS should be considered a very low priority addition for the future.

It has never been core to the EiA Game, and EIANW seems to be all about the NAPOLEONIC WARS (1805-1815) where France is the dominant force in history...


(in reply to megalomania2003)
Post #: 9
RE: another future request - 1/12/2008 2:50:15 PM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1250
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario.

I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 10
RE: another future request - 1/13/2008 4:37:18 AM   
iamspamus

 

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
SUVAROV Rocks!!! He's my favorite leader of the "Napoleonic" wars.

Jason
quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

On the other hand I think having alternate dominant powers (and the other part of the same optional rule that allows GB and France to lose their dominant status) would be a great addition, because it would allow for a realistic setup for 1702, 1750s or 1792 scenario.

I'm playing a FTF 1792 scenario at the moment and it's interesting to watch France's struggle for dominance (and also Russia getting pretty close to becoming dominant what with that 4-5 cavalry leader). France should certainly not be dominant at the start of a 1792 campaign, nor should it be dominant in 1702 or 1750s or later).



(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> another future request Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117