Another little suggestion

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

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

Another little suggestion

Post by bOrIuM »

Would be nice in the Nation Status Overviw the forced peace between 2 major powers and the end date like: peace 05/07. (month/year)
Thresh
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 4:19 am
Location: KCMO

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Thresh »

Isn't that info already given in the 'Show Nation Statistics' panel?

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

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by bOrIuM »

yes, as the wars too, the Nation Status Overviw is a quicker view. And the Nation Statistics shows the time of the peace, not the ending date, wich Is more helpfull from my point.
bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 am

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by bresh »

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Isn't that info already given in the 'Show Nation Statistics' panel?

Todd

Actually you can only see your own, not your possible allies forced peace/alliance restrictions.
Witch you should, the games often have players beeing replaced and it can become hard to keep track of by gamelog.

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

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Marshall Ellis »

Should all of that be public? In the board game these would be tracked on the nation status sheet which was not public, correct?
 
Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


bresh
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:10 am

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by bresh »

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Should all of that be public? In the board game these would be tracked on the nation status sheet which was not public, correct?

I never heard of any EIA-games where peace conditons where not told in the open.


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

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by NeverMan »

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Should all of that be public? In the board game these would be tracked on the nation status sheet which was not public, correct?

I never heard of any EIA-games where peace conditons where not told in the open.


Regards
Bresh

Me either.
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Marshall Ellis »

[left]Peace conditions are not what I said. I am talking about peace restrictions which was the subject, no?[/left][left]I agree that typically peace conditions are public but peace restrictions, alliance restrictions. Those are all items that typically are only public to 2 MPs while they are being counted.[/left][left] [/left]
Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


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

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by bOrIuM »

well, if peace conditions are public, you can tell when the peace if forced. Its just a reminder. On our table the enforced peace was always written on with the ending date.
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Jimmer »

Have it be an option to display/hide conditions.
 
The game is still in its infancy. We need EVERYTHING to be wide open, but only at certain times (like, testing). But, some players will want to play with some things hidden. So, put in an option.
 
Just not in 1.06.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
Ted1066
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Ted1066 »

I think the information we as players are looking for are alliance restrictions between other nations, enforced peace periods between other nations, etc. These are pieces of information that are indirectly reported in the game, but must be tracked outside of the game by the player.

E.g. you play as Austria, Turkey and Russia go to war and Turkey surrenders conditionally to Russia in XXXX. Thus, in XXXX + 18 months, these two nations can go to war again, but unless you record this somewhere outside the game, you have no way of knowing this information easily. This information is based off of public information, but is important knowledge that the game could easily track and manage for the player. Any time I am forced to use something other than EIANW to track EIANW game stats, I have to ask why? These were elements that I as a player would track in ftf games of EiA.

Cheers,

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

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

[left]Peace conditions are not what I said. I am talking about peace restrictions which was the subject, no?[/left][left]I agree that typically peace conditions are public but peace restrictions, alliance restrictions. Those are all items that typically are only public to 2 MPs while they are being counted.[/left][left] [/left]

Anything that is made public at some point in the game should ideally be available for people to view, otherwise the game becomes a memory test or everyone has to spend time tracking back through the event log or writing things down.

There are, to my knowledge, no restrictions from peace or breaking alliances that are not public at the time and so keeping them secret thereafter is just irritating and involves third parties in having to keep notes that the game should be able to do for you.

I want to play a game of strategy and diplomacy, not a memory game.
Regards
David
User avatar
Marshall Ellis
Posts: 5630
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 3:00 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Marshall Ellis »

David:
 
I would take that a good point but isn't it still up to the MPs involved? That was the way we played and yea there was a mem element to it BUT maybe not all played that way???
 
Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


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

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

David:

I would take that a good point but isn't it still up to the MPs involved? That was the way we played and yea there was a mem element to it BUT maybe not all played that way???

Well given that the information is available in the event log anyway it's just irritating to have to go and dig for it.

No game I ever played in had the information kept secret, in fact it was never even considered that it should be so.
Regards
David
User avatar
Ted1066
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Ted1066 »

That was the main theme of my post as well: its written in the log once already, so why does the player have to go hunting for that info. Do the original rules talk about this explicitly? Not sure, as I don't have the rulebook within access right now, but I seem to recall that this information is publicly disclosed.

Cheers,

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

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by DCWhitworth »

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

That was the main theme of my post as well: its written in the log once already, so why does the player have to go hunting for that info. Do the original rules talk about this explicitly? Not sure, as I don't have the rulebook within access right now, but I seem to recall that this information is publicly disclosed.

Cheers,

Ted

There's much that the original rules fail to talk about explicitly, such as whether corps displays are hidden and battles are secret. Both of these are implemented in the game however I've never played in a board game where this has been the case.

That puzzles me a little. Corps identities are hidden, army displays are hidden, but the location of leaders is completely open.
Regards
David
User avatar
Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: East Coast

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Mardonius »

Sounds like good option tabs.

Corps values (hidden/Non hidden)
Army Values (hidden/Non hidden)
Leaders (hidden/Non hidden)
Fleet Values ((hidden/Non hidden)

I am sure that there are many opinions.... best leave it to market factors of the gaming group involved, IMO.

best
Mardonius
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
User avatar
pzgndr
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by pzgndr »

Sounds like good option tabs.

Corps values (hidden/Non hidden)
Army Values (hidden/Non hidden)
Leaders (hidden/Non hidden)
Fleet Values ((hidden/Non hidden)

I am sure that there are many opinions.... best leave it to market factors of the gaming group involved, IMO.

A true FOW option could consider spotting distances, where infantry and heavy fleets can spot into adjacent areas, and cavalry and light fleets can spot two areas away. Beyond spotting range, only generic corps counters and fleets in port would be displayed. Leaders and fleets at sea would not be displayed. Within spotting range, corps and fleet counters by type and generic leaders would be displayed. Only upon entering an area would unit identities be revealed, and perhaps last known unit values (within past couple of turns) could be shown for reference. Allied units should be considered spotted. All this would be consistent with FOW rules in other similar games and would provide a nice option for players to consider. [8D]
Bill Macon
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
User avatar
Mardonius
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: East Coast

RE: Another little suggestion

Post by Mardonius »

There you go! Concise and cogent.

And if we keep these as options we won't tick off the purists... though I never played a pure board game after my first couple of rounds.
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan
Post Reply

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