Game: Empires in Arms

Image

mileser — 2008-11-14T11:41:02+00:00

Empires in Arms Turkish Military Records Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-14T11:39:51+00:00

Empires in Arms Turkish Economic Records Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-14T11:38:21+00:00

Empires in Arms Spanish Military Records Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-14T11:37:15+00:00

Empires in Arms Spanish Economic Records Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-13T21:05:02+00:00

Empires in Arms Russian Military Record Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-13T21:03:58+00:00

Empires in Arms Russian Economic Record Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-13T21:02:38+00:00

Empires in Arms Prussian Economic Record Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-13T14:24:31+00:00

Empires in Arms Political Status Card

Image

mileser — 2008-11-13T14:23:22+00:00

Empires in Arms Great Britain Military Record Sheet

Image

mileser — 2008-11-13T14:22:23+00:00

Empires in Arms Great Britain Economic Record Sheet

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

WalterLai — 2008-10-25T01:20:34+00:00

I have bad experience with Matrix Games. I suspect that they are more developers than programers. I have Cross of Iron and Carriers at War, games they claimed to have "upgraded" but in fact have only given minimal face lift. I do enjoy the free download "War in Russia" but they haven't added anything that wasn't already in this classic title. I am really sad that Empire in Arms had to end up that way in their hands. Don't think we will ever see a playable computer version for it.

Thread: Re: anyone play this by email?

corsocabron — 2008-10-12T17:31:34+00:00

Hi Jeff, you have voluntary cannonfodder available
BTW I´ve worked out a new cyberboard gamebox for EiA. It can be dad´s love, but I think it is a great improvement over previous versions. Sadly it weighs more than 7 Mb; maybe that´s why I can´t get it uploaded. Suppose I can send it individually or share in eMule.
I have a little presential gaming experience from years ago, but I still remember well the rules. No PBEM experience at all, so I´m not qualified to be a game director.
Let me know if you still need people or are interested in the gamebox.
Greetings,
David
corsocabron@ya.com

Thread: Re: EiA with finer grained movement

perfalbion — 2008-10-04T19:58:02+00:00

I don't dislike the amount of cash in the game, it's just ahistorically high. I think EiA is very well balanced and requires a good mix of strategy, diplomacy, and tactics to win.

Thread: Re: EiA with finer grained movement

FrankM — 2008-10-04T19:50:12+00:00

Thanks again, I am in a game now with what seem to be mostly experienced players (and we are using most of the optional rules, including commander limits and supply restrictions).

By campaigns being rare, I just meant that one is more often than not at peace, so extra complexity in war would not bother me.

You are right that it'd be nice if cav had some ability to screen, they would have a bit of that by their withdraw advantage.

I'd doubt I'd consider thing a campaign with modified rules anytime, but may try some of these for a scenario or 2.

Aside from the issue we have discussed above the only other big oddity I find is the accumulation of garrison factors (especially minors). Sicne you seem to dislike to extra cash in th game, I imagine, you might like an additonal factor based support cost in the econ phases.

Thread: Re: EiA with finer grained movement

perfalbion — 2008-10-04T14:24:20+00:00

FrankM wrote:
I realize that one can keep closer by screening, but that feels unsatisfying and ahistorical (I think).

There are plenty of examples in history of a force being held up, but I'll agree EiA takes it to an extreme in terms of odd.

From a game standpoint, one is sometime limited in the number of corps on can safely screen with without PP loss.

If this is true, then the armies are pretty full.

Additonally a line of screening corps can be pricey to keep in peace time, so Prussia will usually keep its peacetime corps far in the east, if France is able to DoW.

Note that this isn't a bad thing. EiA has too much money running around (largely due to the supply rules). Anything that removes some from the game on a regular basis is good.

On the cavalry thing, I did not mean to imply that infantry who enter cavalry spaces could not move in a subsequent segment.

I missed that, actually. I'd go back and change it if you're planning on using these rules. Infantry without cavalry around would tighten up formation, form square, slow down, etc.

Agreed this probaly hurts the French, I tried to help by allowing them to take a mini-double move but do realize that is not as big as a real one.

It's nowhere big as their "normal" advantage. Particularly since you're waiting until step after 5 to have combats occur.

Supply would be resolved in step 5 before combat and be based on the mps left (nuisance would be a systm for considering provices passed through). This scheme would require a variety of markers (mps, lowest forrage, etc).

Ugh. You'll come to dread those markers fairly quickly. Particularly since you'll need them for tons of corps.

It wold certainly add a bit of complexity, but major campaigns seem rare enough that this would not bother me if they added value.

What do you mean by "major campaigns are rare enough..."?

EiA's biggest historical flaw is that the best strategy is usually to pile every corps you have under the best leader you have and go to town. Occasionally, you'll see smaller forces running around under other commanders in secondary theaters, but this often is just to link up with an ally and make another large stack.

If you're not using the optional leadership rules that allow you to do this, I'd recommend using those immediately. You're handing a positively monstrous advantage to the French due to the structure of the OOBs in the game - the first 3 French corps are often the equivalent of 5-7 corps from another country.

In my experience, it's actually pretty rare for there not to be a campaign under way somewhere unless the world is at peace or those at war can't reach one another due to distance and oceans.

I am not sure how attacker-defender determination would be made, perhaps original enterer would be attacker.

Which would be another counter to track, mind you.

You might hit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/empiresinarms and see if there's a PBEM game you can watch. This isn't an easy game to pick up without an experienced player or two running around. Might help you to see a game in progress.

Thread: Re: EiA with finer grained movement

FrankM — 2008-10-04T00:58:26+00:00

Thanks for the comments, all fair points, and I do very much like the game as is.

I realize that one can keep closer by screening, but that feels unsatisfying and ahistorical (I think). From a game standpoint, one is sometime limited in the number of corps on can safely screen with without PP loss. Additonally a line of screening corps can be pricey to keep in peace time, so Prussia will usually keep its peacetime corps far in the east, if France is able to DoW.

On the cavalry thing, I did not mean to imply that infantry who enter cavalry spaces could not move in a subsequent segment. The ability to move is only lost when out of mp or when you start a segment with an enemy in your space.

Agreed this probaly hurts the French, I tried to help by allowing them to take a mini-double move but do realize that is not as big as a real one.

Supply would be resolved in step 5 before combat and be based on the mps left (nuisance would be a systm for considering provices passed through). This scheme would require a variety of markers (mps, lowest forrage, etc). It wold certainly add a bit of complexity, but major campaigns seem rare enough that this would not bother me if they added value.

I am not sure how attacker-defender determination would be made, perhaps original enterer would be attacker.

Frank

Thread: Re: EiA with finer grained movement

perfalbion — 2008-10-03T23:13:49+00:00

First, you're missing the importance of screening corps. A 1 factor corps that is in an area stops any and all corps that attempt to move through that area. So if Prussia is nervous about France, one doesn't have to hide in Warsaw, one can spread out a line of throw-away corps. And since the combat against them is almost sure to be trivial (greater than 5:1), you won't exchange political points for the combat.

Second, the sequence you're proposing is similar one that I've seen for simultaneous movement. There's a couple of problems with the idea.

1> You state that if corps end up in the same area, neither can continue moving unless one enters a city. Except the rules don't allow you to do that unless there aren't any enemy corps in the area. So nobody can unless you also change that rule.

2> You're significantly diluting the advantage of being the French and/or taking combined movement. Manipulating the sequence of play through alliances and combined movement and just being the French is a very, very big deal.

3> Cavalry corps do not have the ability to automatically withdraw from combat under the rules. They withdraw from forces without cavalry corps more easily, but you've now set them up with a great deal of strength - they can now block a corps or group of corps with movement still to go and fix them in place for other corps of the controlling power to hit. This is a big advantage for players with lots of cav corps.

4> Who exactly is attacking and who's defending? The combat options available in the form of chits have dramatic swings in them, and Napoleon on the defense is much, much more dangerous than Napoleon on the offense. Under the system you've proposed, this sounds like it would be randomly determined.

5> You're really, really making supply a nightmare. That's not necessarily bad, mind you, but it's also not necessarily good.

I love EiA. I moderate one of the EiA groups on Yahoo! and would love to get a game going locally. If the game needs "fixing," I'd direct your energies more towards supply and forage (way too few guys die due to starvation) and/or fixing the 'Who may fight' rule for naval.

But I'm not sure you'd find the game as satisfying with the system you're proposing. The sequence of play really is a critical part of the strength of France and alliances.

Thread: EiA with finer grained movement

FrankM — 2008-10-03T20:43:22+00:00

I am enjoying my first campaign game very much (played some scenarios years ago) and though I know it is abad thing to tweak a good game beofre giving it a bunch of plays I figure the odds of getting a bunch of EiA plays into a lifetime are low, so here goes.

As I have played one thing that seems odd is how tactics dictate keeping armies at tremendous distances, eg. a Prussian army in eastern Prussia when the French are in the german minors, to avoid an undesired combat. This is a result of the relatively long movements of the armies/month and the lack of any reaction moves (aside from lowish probability withdraws).

I wonder what the impact would be aside from increasing game length, of breaking up the movement phase would be. A not full fleshed out idea of how this could work is, for example, if movement was broken into 5 segments (with mps expended unfortunately having to be tracked) wherein-

1. all 5mp units can make one move (mps used recorded)

2. all 3/4/5 mp units may make one move (mps used recorded)

3. all 3/4/5 mp units with mps remaining may make one move (mps used recorded)

4. all 3/4/5 mp units with mps remaining may make one move (mps used recorded)

5. all 5 mp units with mps remaining may make one move (mps used recorded)

-Each segment is executed in the standard land order with french specifying where in the order they move.

-The French can insert extra move into steps 2-5. (paying the mp cost)

-When an infantry unit enters a space with an enemy infantry units, neither unit can continue moving unless one enters a city.

-A cavalry unit may exit a space upon entry of an enemy infantry unit (by paying the mp cost to move), if it remains it loses this ability.

-Attacks are declared and resolved during step 5 as each power completes its move.

I'd love to hear commentary on the appropriatness of armies being able to catch each other if not far away or on the playability /realism of this variant, or any thing else for that matter.

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

perfalbion — 2008-08-31T15:12:27+00:00

While I'd love for this to happen, particularly with thorny rules issues clarified I've two thoughts.

1. Don't hold your breath until ADG puts something more formal out so they have some way of gauging possible acceptance of the game. I would think that with the EiA mailing lists that are out there, they'd do something involving them to see who might buy a copy.

2. Don't hold your breath because the "rules changes" might be along the same lines of the PC game and make it more Empires in Harm. While that may not be a bad thing for some, it's a very, very different game that many EiA fans don't find appealing.

I'd love to see it happen (and love to get a game going in my area). But I wouldn't hold off purchasing a copy of the old version based on a rumor. Particularly since they can show up reasonably cheap on eBay.

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

iamspamus — 2008-08-31T12:19:03+00:00

There was a quick blurb about this in the newest WiFFE "annual". It just had a listing of possible releases in the future.

Jason

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

iamspamus — 2008-08-31T12:17:33+00:00

djberg96 wrote:
I can't find anything either. The only thing I see was an announcement from 2002 about the computer game, which game out in December, 2007:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/285/details/Empires.in.A...

I didn't even know it was out. Anyone tried it?

I have. Hmmm. It's a still buggy. They are on patch v1.03.14. It is a bit counter-intuitive to operate. The AI sucks, but is getting better.

It is basically Empires in Harms v3, not specifically EiA. I do have it and do play it a bit, but... I'm not sure that I would recommend it.

Sorry guys. Maybe in the future.

Jason

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

MGabriel — 2008-08-20T02:07:10+00:00

rubberchicken wrote:
i played one campaign game of EiA about 15 or 20 years ago. I was England. I can still remember some of the events of the game. I can't say that about many other games. I really got into it.

It was a 5 player game. I can remember struggles with France to control Spain which was a non player country. Eventually France got control and I had to sink the spanish fleet. I also remember negotiating money to keep Austria in the war.

Good game.
I haven't played EiA in about 20 years, but if you ask me what my fav war game is, I would say EiA. The campaigns we played back then are fresh in my mind, especially the time I played France---perhaps the most intense gaming experience ever. We would play for entire weekends, starting Friday night and playing basically straight through until Monday morning.

I agree that there were issues with the rules, but they seemed not to detract from the gaming experience very much. The combat is rock-paper-scissor, but that's not a bad thing. Over the many battles we fought results tended toward the reasonable and expected (that is, the French are very strong, the Russians are tough, the Austrians middling, the Prussians unpredictable and potentially very dangerous (their ability to hoard manpower is cool), the Spanish really must rely on their guerrillas, and the you just can't kill the Turks fast enough).

What a wonderful game. But I can't see how I'd have time for it again these days.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

Troymk1 — 2008-08-10T12:57:16+00:00

stephenhope wrote:
I've played in a couple of EiA campaigns and they both degenerated quite quickly. The biggest problem is that countries who are likely to lose a war they're in have very little incentive to actually FIGHT the war, since they will lose political standing for losing battles in the war AND weaken their army for any other neighbours who might come pick on them once France/Russia/England (whoever their oppressor of the moment is) is done. So they surrender immediately.

Then the English/French/Russians say, "That was no good. I need to be winning battles to keep my political standing high enough to win. Who else can I declare war on?" And they turn to the next chump/minor power...Rinse, repeat, see you every 18 months.

Uhhh, thats what diplomacy and alliances are for. This is a Multi-player game.

I'm sorry to say if any assymetric Multi-player gets played by fools, the game looks foolish.

Just how it is.

I think I've commented before on the geek on how many players end up playing 'social solitaire' Basically just playing their own hand/side without thinking big picture.

EiA suffers from this as much as any game.

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

hancock.tom — 2008-07-29T17:50:12+00:00

I have heard nothing good about the computer game. I read the entire consimworld folder on EiA when I started playing the game there wasn't a single good comment about the game after its release.

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

djberg96 — 2008-07-29T12:59:07+00:00

I can't find anything either. The only thing I see was an announcement from 2002 about the computer game, which game out in December, 2007:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/285/details/Empires.in.A...

I didn't even know it was out. Anyone tried it?

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

hancock.tom — 2008-07-14T12:04:06+00:00

Any news on what the changes will be?

I would hate to wait on this, buy it, and not like what I get!

more information please!

EDIT: I can't find this on the ADG website.

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

billyboy — 2008-07-06T22:59:52+00:00

I will be keeping an eye out for this one.

Thread: Re: New edition of Empires in Arms

13blackravens — 2008-07-06T13:53:41+00:00

Been hunting for a second hand copy. I shall wait patiently for this instead!!!

Thanks for the info.

Christopher

Thread: New edition of Empires in Arms

isaacc — 2008-07-06T05:00:33+00:00

For those who are in love with this game or those masochists among us, be advised that on the publishing schedule at the Australian Design Group (ADG) is a new edition of Empires in Arms. It is to be dubbed Empires in Arms the Final Edition. It sounds like a major overhaul of the game along a similar treatment of World in Flames (WiF) (Final Edition). This is a must to have as would say an Hungarian general.

I took this information from the WiF 2008 annual. I don't know where in the production queue EiAFE is. Perhaps we can coax Harry Rowland to chime in with more detail.
.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

da pyrate — 2008-06-29T05:10:10+00:00

stephenhope wrote:
The big question I'm curious about w/r/t this game is: How does it compare to TNW, for those who have tried both?

The Napoleonic War is a 5-hour game where players tend to play for themselves. It has a primarily military flavour and the focus of the game is the use of the cards.

EiA is more than 100 hours to play and is primarily a game of discussion and negotiation where the game subsystems are used to discover the results of the negotiation.

Two totally different games - you may as well compare potato crisps to a steak dinner. Both are fine but are for different situations.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

stephenhope — 2008-06-29T04:53:20+00:00

I've played in a couple of EiA campaigns and they both degenerated quite quickly. The biggest problem is that countries who are likely to lose a war they're in have very little incentive to actually FIGHT the war, since they will lose political standing for losing battles in the war AND weaken their army for any other neighbours who might come pick on them once France/Russia/England (whoever their oppressor of the moment is) is done. So they surrender immediately.

Then the English/French/Russians say, "That was no good. I need to be winning battles to keep my political standing high enough to win. Who else can I declare war on?" And they turn to the next chump/minor power...Rinse, repeat, see you every 18 months.

I think there's a great game inside of EiA waiting to get out (with, as noted in this thread, some major midwifery). If you've accomplished that, David, I congratulate and envy you! I think with a heavily modified ruleset and/or VP system this game would be really immersive and enjoyable.

But I pretty much agree with Kurt--out of the box, the game has severe problems. To the extent that a heavily-modified version of the game can be made really robust and enjoyable, that's great but you should probably make it even more clear in the OP just so people don't pick it up looking for something they can jump right into.

The big question I'm curious about w/r/t this game is: How does it compare to TNW, for those who have tried both?

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

da pyrate — 2008-06-29T01:52:23+00:00

Hello Kurt,

thank you for your comments.

one of the first things I said in the review is that the game is "potentially" great - the game as published has serious shortcomings.

I agree with you in that when playing the game, I find that the most important element is the discussion and negotiation aspect of the game.

I am only sorry that you were unable to join us for our most recent foray into EiA.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

Kurt Frank — 2008-06-28T22:52:58+00:00

For the purposes of balance these are some comments from someone who both likes long campaign games and dislikes EiA.

First up, nice review, shame it's not a review of Empires in Arms. I read the rules under which the campaign this review was based off was played. It had significant changes to the base rules, VP points system and national force structures. It would be far more accurate to call it a review of “The Return of the Revenge of the Ghost of the Bride of the Son of EiA”.

Land combat is indeed much more than just “paper-scissors-stone”, it's “paper-scissors-stone” with chrome! If anyone doubts this assertion, please play a scenario or campaign game in which you give your opponents an intelligence advantage, that is, you choose and reveal your combat chit before they choose theirs and report back with the results.

I believe that when playing EiA you should try to make good decisions for your country based on what is sensible and not based on how many points you will get in the game. I believe that if you make smart decisions the points will come to your country naturally. If you make decisions based on how the game allocates points you will be missing a lot of the overall experience of the game.

Now here you are making your own game out of the components, a pastime I both enjoy and encourage, but it's NOT EiA. To suggest that if a player focuses purely on the victory conditions then the game is no fun indicates at the very least a seriously flawed VP system.

I know players who have written up extensive house rules and campaigns that describe EiA's VP system as an empty quest for military glory. Simply put you get most of your points for winning battles, VPs awarded for achieving some higher purpose are relatively insignificant.

I will echo a few things about who should NOT play EiA:
Players looking for a simulation of the Napoleonic Wars (the game description on the box is misleading, it's not “A Game of Napoleonic Diplomacy and Warfare”, rather it's “A Game of Diplomacy during the Napoleonic Wars”).
Players who are not fans of games that are at their core political/diplomatic (Diplomacy, Kingmaker, Republic of Rome, Werewolf, et. al. That is, games where you are “playing the players”).

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

hancock.tom — 2008-06-28T19:48:22+00:00

nice review. I am just starting a campaign of EiA and really enjoying it. Its a game that is underrated because of its length, which is a strength rather than a weakness in my opinion.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

liberor13 — 2008-06-28T16:37:39+00:00

Thanks for this, it was cool to read about an old classic!

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

kernst67 — 2008-06-28T13:55:04+00:00

Nothing better than playing the French in the 1792 campaign.

Thread: Re: Seven Days In June

promuso — 2008-06-27T23:21:10+00:00

...yes I have to conceed that EIA is a fine game & I'm glad I took the time out to participate.

It is important to have the right mix of players. The first time I played this game (as Spain), the Austrian & French promtly allied (they were brothers, by the way) and quickly took out Prussia. It did not make for a rewarding EIA experience.

I approached this game with some trepidation. The rulebook is tedious & I expected the game to be the same. It certainly was not.

We were lucky to have the services of Ian Trout, who knew the rules throughly (or thought he did, until Mr. Benton told him otherwise), provided some smart house rules, has a set of delightful home made counters and did all the battle reports for us.

An honorable mention goes to Da Pyrate, who persuaded me to give it a go in the first place & was always a gentleman in our negotiations. However as a pirate, he has a long way to go and should never have been allowed to command the French navy.

Lastly, I would never have belived that this game can actualy be fun. Some of the banter was hilarious. Some of the dice rolls produced hoots of laughter for all concerned, and the odd chorus of 'War...what is it good for....absolutely nothing....say it again' helped keep the game in perspective. Mind you, there were also some tense moments too.

See you all next year. I enjoyed your company.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

Troymk1 — 2008-06-27T19:56:41+00:00

Great game....

one o the reasons for my Avatar

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

rubberchicken — 2008-06-27T19:35:57+00:00

i played one campaign game of EiA about 15 or 20 years ago. I was England. I can still remember some of the events of the game. I can't say that about many other games. I really got into it.

It was a 5 player game. I can remember struggles with France to control Spain which was a non player country. Eventually France got control and I had to sink the spanish fleet. I also remember negotiating money to keep Austria in the war.

Good game.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

cyhiew — 2008-06-27T14:07:59+00:00

Empire in Arms (IMHO) is probably one of the best grand strategic games on Napoleonic warfare. The 1792 campaign variant is also a very good alternative. The rules are in The General Vol 25 No 4 and the variant counters in the insert from Vol 25 no 2. This variant seems more balance in the beginning as France is not the juggernaut from the start like in the 1805 campaign. France is not dominant and has to achieve this status by skillful campaigning and diplomacy. The corp sizes are also reduced for some countries.

I have played one full campaign game to the end and am 3/4 through a second one. We play approximately once a month and our present game started in Oct 2004 (with months off over christmas and occasional months off). Our gaming group usually averages 2-3 turns if there are many battles or 5-6 turns during times of peace. We play over about 5 hours on a Sunday afternoon. Great fun...with lots of diplomacy. Presently Spain has achieved dominant status with the help of England, Austria and Turkey warring against a very good French player. Russia has been very idle until recently when a change of government (change of player) lead to more aggressive moves. Prussia has finally joined the anti French coalition.

Thread: Re: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

wargamer55 — 2008-06-27T06:01:42+00:00

I agree in general with your comments. In the late 1980s and early 1990s my gaming group at the time pretty much had continuous EIA campaigns going and I got to play in three of them full-time and filled in as a sub on one or two others.

The character of the game is much more like a more complex, less ruthless game of Diplomacy than a typical wargame. Even World War II strategic games which allow for about as many players as EIA are a lot different because the WWII alliances are more firm. Even the Soviets are not going to suddenly switch sides in World In Flames, whereas the only constant in EIA is Britain against France.

If you play with the right mindset this is one of the absolutely best wargame experiences you will ever have.

Thread: Re: Seven Days In June

Sphere — 2008-06-27T02:36:37+00:00

Excellent report, David! I enjoyed reading it very much.

Thread: EiA: The Ultimate Role-playing Game

da pyrate — 2008-06-27T02:14:10+00:00

Empires in Arms
]]>
Grand Strategic Game of the Napoleonic Wars
7 Players
Playing Time is in excess of 100 hours
Designed by Harry Rowland & Greg Pinder
Published by Australian Design Group (1983) & Avalon Hill (1986)

Let me start by simply saying that EiA is potentially one of the best wargames that has ever been published. Potentially because it is essential to have the right people playing the game (by ‘right’ people I mean people who have the attitude that is necessary to get the most from the game) and also because there are some serious issues with the rules as published (these issues have been addressed by some rather ‘serious’ house rules). I believe that the ‘house’ rules that I use make the game more realistic, more interesting and a better game.

My Relationship With Empires in Arms

I have now played the campaign game 4 times and scenarios perhaps 6 times. I bought the ADG edition from the hand of Harry Rowland when the game was first released in Australia in 1983/84. My initial reaction to the game was not positive. I played a scenario shortly after purchasing the game and did not find it a rewarding experience. I continue to see the scenarios as basically training exercises where players learn the basic movement and combat subsystems.

I played my first campaign in 1988 and took control of Turkey. It was a great game that was played on Saturday afternoons for many, many months. I would spend hours on the phone during the week negotiating with other players.

My next campaign was fought in 1989. To be honest, it was a poor substitute for my previous campaign. In this game the French and the Austrians allied and this tends to make it a poor game for everyone else. See my comments below regarding the people that should not ever be allowed to play EiA.

1993 saw my next campaign where I took control of France. It was an overwhelming challenge that I was not equal to. Despite winning several battles my loss of troops made my victories pyhyric. I ran out of troops too soon, but the problem was my lack of subtlety while manoeuvring and poor diplomacy. Don’t forget that EiA is an exercise in diplomacy as much as it is an exercise in war.

I have just finished my fourth campaign and you may like to read the session report, which is entitled “Seven Days in June.”

I think that EiA is a great game BUT it is a role-playing game. You take the role of the leader of a European nation and you make diplomatic, economic and military decisions that will affect its fate. Most of the activity in the game is actually talking with the other players and establishing your relationship with them for your own benefit. The game’s subsystems are used to resolve your negotiations and discussions.

In EiA your ally today may be your enemy tomorrow and your enemy today may be your ally tomorrow. Alliances should be made with serious consideration as there are negative consequences in game terms of breaking your alliances. There are serious responsibilities attached to forming an alliance. It is never in your country’s best interest to “fight to the last man”.

Many players are not emotionally equipped to surrender nor are they emotionally equipped to select the “Withdraw” chit in a combat. Many players are not actually emotionally equipped to play EiA.

I consider playing a campaign of EiA to be an experience. It doesn’t matter whether I win or lose (although I would like to win) – I want to enjoy the diplomacy, I want to enjoy the historical flavour, I want to enjoy the company of other gamers. EiA is an experience and it is an experience to be savoured and enjoyed. It is also a massive commitment of time.

Anyway, enough of that – let’s look at the game itself.

The Components

The components are satisfactory. There are 1008 counters of varying sizes. There is nothing special about them and they will wear out as it is an area movement game. Players tend to fondle their counters and the leader counters, in particular, can become unreadable fairly easily. As a matter of interest, when playing the most recent game of EiA we used a home-made set of counters which really added to the overall enjoyment of the game. Most of the counters are numerical markers and so relatively few counters appear on the map at any given time.

There is a large, two-piece, unmounted map showing Europe and North Africa. In my opinion the colouring is a touch bland and should have been printed with stronger colours for woods and a different colour used for marshes. On a different note, the Avalon Hill map is actually smaller than the original ADG map – given the choice go with the ADG map.

There are several reference cards and a large, poorly-written rule book. The AH rules are better than the ADG rules regarding clarity but they still make the game appear much more complex that it really is. Significant parts of the rules cover aspects of the game that are really fairly minor. If you are suffering from insomnia you can do a lot worse than picking up and trying to read the EiA rule book, in the hope that it will put you to sleep - it probably will.

]]>
The Subsystems

The subsystems in EiA are surprisingly simply, straight-forward and intuitive.

There are 12 monthly turns in each of the 11 game years. Four times each year there is an Economic Phase.

During a monthly turn there is a:
Political Phase – declare war on other countries, sue for peace and form alliances;
Reinforcement Phase – bring on new units;
Naval Phase – move ships, transport troops, fight battles, blockade ports, intercept enemy fleets;
Land Phase – move troops, pay for supplies or forage for free and fight battles.

In the quarterly Economic Phase you:
Collect Victory Points
Collect Money & Manpower
Maintain Current Forces
Build New Forces.

There are several interesting aspects regarding movement. Countries with a formal alliance are allowed to declare joint movement and this will allow them to launch an attack simultaneously and in conjunction with each other.

Also, Britain is considered to have initiative during naval movement and France is considered to have initiative during land movement. This means that they get to choose where in the sequence have play they have their turn.

Normally the order of movement is Russia, Turkey, Prussia, Austria and Spain. We have a ‘house’ rule where each nation has its own DRM (die roll modifier) and every nation may roll to see if they have initiative. With these house rules France and Britain have a significant advantage with their DRMs but the rule has been modified on the basis that virtually nothing should be certain. France and Britain can usually manipulate the turn order to get a ‘double-move’ when they want or need it, but it is not a total certainty.

Land combat is quite interesting and different from other war games. When combat is initiated both the Attacker and Defender select a tactic chit. These are cross-referenced and will direct each combatant to a table based on potential casualty levels and potential morale levels. This is much more than just ‘paper-scissors-stone’. Each army has its morale assessed. Britain and France have higher morale for their troops than other countries. During battle there will be three rounds of combat, each on a different table. Each round of combat will cause casualties (based on the size of the enemy force) and will cause a loss of morale. If a side’s morale is broken by the end of the battle the other side will win. Winning/losing battles will cause the gain/loss of victory points. The fact that there are three rounds of combat to a battle tends, to a certain extent, to even out dice rolls so that luck is not as big a factor as in many other wargames.

]]>
Why Is Empires in Arms a Role-playing Game?

As mentioned previously, EiA is much more than simply a simulation of military aspects of European history in the years 1805-1815. You control the diplomatic and economic aspects of your country. Apart from Britain and France being at war at the start of 1805 everything else in in your own hands. The object of the game is to do the best you can for your country. All countries are not equal. For this reason each country requires a different number of victory points to win. The stronger countries need a lot more points. A countries strength is measured by the size of its economy (how much money it earns via taxation) and the size of its manpower (the amount of people at its disposal to create armies).

One thing that becomes abundantly clear while playing EiA is how hellishly expensive it is to fight a way. Countries cannot fight continuously in this game otherwise they surely will run out of money and run out of men. If you have to surrender you can hold out for better terms if you still have the semblance of an economy.

Which People Should Play Empires in Arms?

I personally don’t think the scenarios are worth playing unless you are using them as a vehicle to learn the basic mechanics. That leaves the campaigns.

You should only consider playing EiA if the following apply to you:
You are happy to devote a significant time to playing a single game;
You are genuinely interested in Military History;
You are patient;
You enjoy talking with other people;
You are willing to play a game where, for significant amounts of time, little appears to be happening on the map.

Which People Should Not Play Empires in Arms?

I have seen and heard of games of EiA which have been spoilt by players who have the wrong attitude to the game. I have played in a game and heard of another game where France and Russia have, from the start of the game, ganged up on everyone else. It doesn’t make for a fun game and doesn’t provide challenge to either France or Russia. I have heard of games where all the big players gang up on Spain and Turkey – this seems to me bizarre.

I believe that when playing EiA you should try to make good decisions for your country based on what is sensible and not based on how many points you will get in the game. I believe that if you make smart decisions the points will come to your country naturally. If you make decisions based on how the game allocates points you will be missing a lot of the overall experience of the game.

People who want to manipulate rules to gain an unfair advantage, players who don't give fair consideration to agreements that they make and players who just want to WIN no matter what, will almost certainly not enjoy the experience that EiA provides.

Wrap-up

EiA is not a game for everyone. From the point of view of both space and time it requires a large commitment. The rules really are awful – it is a game that is much easier if you have someone to teach it rather than work it out for yourself. If you do have to teach yourself just focus on the movement, supply and combat rules initially - everything else you can read about at point of need.

While the mechanics themselves are really quite straight-forward the complexity of the decisions to be made during the game are quite mammoth. This is due to the wide range of possibilities from the inter-relationship of so many of the game aspects.

I hope you can find the right people to play with this game so that you can make it work. Keep in mind that military operations are only one aspect of the game. The object of the game is not to gang-up on France, or any other power – then all you have to do is “suck it and see”.

“Dead Men Tell No Tales!”

Thread: Seven Days In June

da pyrate — 2008-06-27T00:53:23+00:00

Empires in Arms

Played at Unlimited Hobbies, Blacktown, NSW, Australia
Started Tuesday June 17th, 2008
Finished Monday June 23rd, 2008

Players
France: David Cox – previously played 3 campaigns of EiA and author of this document.
Britain: Bob Benton – previously played 2 campaigns of eiA.
Austria: Graham Lockwood – previously played 1 day of 1 campaign and decided that the game “sucked”.
Prussia: Michael Thai – owner of Unlimited Hobbies and an EiA “virgin”.
Russia: Max Bancroft – Tsar for the first four days and another “virgin”.
Russia: Andrew Cox – Tsar for the final three days, my son, and had played an EiA scenario 7 months previously.
Spain: Ian Trout – winner of 5 previous EiA campaigns, writer of our house rules and self-proclaimed Guru of EiA.
Turkey: Chen – another “virgin” who stepped in to fill the final seat (assuming that you can actually step into a seat”) only a couple of days before it all started to happen.

How It All Began
I have known Graham for nearly 30 years and frequently visit him, although he lives 5 hours drive down the road. Back in October 2007 we were talking about games we liked and I mentioned Empires in Arms. Graham said it was a game he had played once and hoped never to play again. This surprised me. I was able to persuade him to give it a second chance. We decided that we would try to put together a campaign for June 2008. We felt that to get other people to commit to seven consecutive days of EiA we needed to give a fair bit of notice.

This would be my fourth campaign. My previous campaign had been as France and I was convincingly defeated very early in the piece. I felt totally overwhelmed by the French situation.

Despite this I decided it would be best for me to play France for reasons which I am not prepared to put down on this document.

June came around and we had seven players, despite several people pulling out in the last few weeks.

On the Sunday before Graham, Michael and myself played the 1805 scenario. We then set up two games for the full campaign game.

Why two you ask?

One was for the real game on Tuesday and the other was to allow some of us to have a practice start on the Monday so that those new to the game had a chance to familiarise themselves with the basic subsystems for movement, combat and economics. Have the two practice days was a good move and saved us a lot of game time once the real campaign commenced.

Please note that we have made serious use of ‘house’ rules that make the game more realistic and a better game than if you were to use the rules as published. Feel free to read my review of Empires in Arms to get a clearer idea of the house rules or even send me a message if you would like me to email a copy of the rules to you.

Also bear in mind that I didn’t make notes as I was playing the game – all that follows is reminiscences.

1805

For the duration of 1805 little happened of any consequence. Britain and France started and remained at war. Austria, Prussia, Russia, Turkey and Spain conquered minor countries. France built troops and saved money.

1806

France declared war on Austria – in retrospect I think I should have built up for at least another six months before going to war. Austria called Russia as an ally but chose not to call Prussia. Russian troops were already in Prussia.

I had intended to fight Austria as I felt it was easier to get to Vienna than Berlin. I also hoped to pick up the Italian conquered minors that were under Austrian control.

As it turned out Russia attacked me – prematurely as it turned out. The first battle of the war saw approximately 50,000 Russian casualties to a mere 3,000 French casualties. The French responded by launching an attack on the surviving units, totally eliminating them and capturing Tsar Alexander in the process. At this point Prussia declared war and fought a battle that saw approximately 80,000 Prussian casualties to 7,000 French casualties. I was very happy with both the chit picks and with the dice rolls. In both these battles Davout had been leading the French troops as Napoleon was in the south, expecting to take on the Austrians.

I decided to keep to my original plan and have Napoleon take on the Austrians, confident that Davout could keep the remaining forces of Russian and Prussia under control.

Meanwhile, the British invaded Brest and, due to me rolling a ‘6’ for supply for the garrison, took control of Brest and destroyed a 30-factor French fleet in the process.

While this had been going on Turkey had declared war on France. Furthermore, the Russian and British navies helped to transport three Turkish corps to Sardinia, then to Portugal and then supported a Turkish invasion in the south of France.

The Spanish claimed that they felt threatened to have a Turkish force so close to their home border. Also, they would declare war on the Turks unless they were allowed to take control of Naples. The British reluctantly allowed the Spanish to take Naples.

My response to the invasion was to totally ignore it. It would be easier for me to deal with it if the Turks moved further north and closer to my forces.

The Turks were so despondent by being ignored they sued for an informal peace, became my ally and then started moving their three corps eastward, in anticipation of going to war with the Austrians. The entire Coalition was furious. As it was a stupid plan in the first place to have Turkey invade the south-west corner of France my care-factor was zero-point-zero percent.

I was concerned about the Turk’s lack of reliability and persuaded the Austrians and Prussians to seek a conditional peace from me BEFORE the Turks declared war on Austria. They agreed to this in November. At this point the Turks were allowed to march home across Austria, most of the Russians marched back home and France started to take out Russia’s western territory, Denmark.

I was surprised that they offered to surrender as only shortly before there had been a serious French reversal in the north. One of our ‘house’ rules is that if you choose the ‘withdraw’ chit in combat, you get to roll for the withdrawl at the start of each combat round. Davout required a ‘4’ on the first round and anything except a ‘6’ on the final two rounds. Davout rolled three ‘6’s for withdrawl and suffered massive casualties. The balance of power in the north had changed as the French had very few troops with which to fill up the empty corps.

Due to being in the Instability Zone on the Political Display, the Austrian conquered minor countries in Italy declared their independence. The French picked up two of these and the indomitable Spanish took control of the Papal States, much to the chagrin of the British.

1807

This year started with France at war with both Russia and Britain. Around June the Austrians, Prussians, Russians and British declared war on a perfidious and treacherous Turkey. God was on the side of the big battalions, giving them super dice rolls for combat.

1807 finished with the Turks giving a conditional surrender to the four attacking nations.

1808

Due to enforced peace very little happened before June. The French took 4 months to capture Denmark due to the inability of their troops to breach the walls at Copenhagen. This slowed down the campaign to capture Sweden and basically really slowed the French economy from preparing for war. During this time the British launched an invasion at Toulon to destroy another fleet of 20 French ships. Another bad die roll for the supply of the gallant French garrison made it easy for the perfidious British.

When June arrived the French declared war on Austria. Again the plan had been to take the Austrians head-on while holding the Prussians and Russians. The Austrians fought an inconclusive battle at Venice where the French suffered their first serious casualties of the game.

Shortly after the Prussians, Russians and British fought battles in north-west Europe and again, the casualties for two battles were something like 120,000 casualties for the Coalition and only 20,000 for the French.

The French were slowly gaining the upper-hand in the north and controlled most of the minor countries.

The French economy reached its zenith at the end of 1808.

1809

The war continued in much the same vein through to the middle of 1809

At this point we reached the seventh and final game day. At this point the British ceded control of Gibralta in exchange for a Spanish declaration of war on the French.

The Spanish were advancing from Naples and along the south coast of France. Britain was advancing up the south-west coast of France. France was still winning battles in the north but was having trouble in the south due to the excess of foreign troops involved in the invasion.

We got a small number of game turns in before our 3:30 p.m. finish and finished the game at the end of the March 1810 turn.

Wrap-up

Everyone, except Chen, had a really good time. To be honest, Chen got bored and then tended to go and play on the computer while the rest of us took up the challenge of fighting a war. To be honest, Chen has no-one to blame but himself. I feel that Chen was opportunistic and was waiting to see what happened before committing himself. Once committed, Chen showed himself willing to change sides very easily.

The Russian/Prussian/Austrian Coalition appeared to be three people selflessly putting themselves on the line to take a hit for the team.

The Spanish player was completely selfish and totally focussed on his own aims.

The British player appeared, to me, to be generally interested in the Coalition but, was a touch selfish in putting his own needs ahead of the Coalition from time to time. There were occasions when he helped the Coalition but was a little slow getting involved as he sought to satisfy his own requirements first and foremost.

As far as points go we had played 47% of the game in seven days which is a fine achievement. France was way ahead on points having scored in the vicinity of 230 of its required 360 points (around 63%). However, it was going to turn sour for the French. Britain was coming second on points but without a strong France the chance of Britain scoring points diminishes. I only needed to average a touch over 5.5 points per quarter to reach my goal by the end of the game and that is certainly attainable.

Personally, I was happy with my performance as France. I think in the 5 game years France had only lost two battles and there had been three inconclusive battles. I was beaten by overwhelming numbers coming in from every direction.

My money is on Spain. He had taken control of several minor countries in Italy and had been given Gibralta, all without even firing a bullet. Ian won by skilful diplomacy – and the rest of us are in awe of him and his skill.

As I left the shop I heard the others discussing when they would next play EiA. What do you think of that, Mr Lockwood?

"Dead Men Tell No Tales"

Thread: Re: Empires in Arms: Requirements not mentioned on the box

hancock.tom — 2008-06-14T13:27:43+00:00

GROGnads wrote:
For some folks, then ALL of this just wasn't enough! When that Napoleon's Battles was made available, and even including the additional "Modules"-Napoleon's Battles Module 1 & Napoleon's Battles Module 2, then someone got the bright notion of transferring the "Battles" FROM "E.i.A." unto the playing surfaces using those. You can hardly imagine how much longer that would entail in conducting anything with the method ascribed then, as each individual "encounter" with substantial 'Armies', will now be laboriously "gamed" in this fashion. It requires going above and beyond what you normally would be having as a result, while I'm certain that the "miniatures" guys would then be having themselves quite the "Field Day" with such. Of course, they'll be wanting to "trot out" any "minis" instead, for sure.

That is quite simple the most awesome thing I have ever heard of. It would take you longer to game than the actual war itself took.

Thread: Re: 1805 Grand Campagin Session 1 - Appalachian Gamers

Baron_Cunedda — 2008-06-13T02:19:11+00:00

*Folding his arms, the Tsar gazes across the map, glaring*

Excellent summary of the 1st 2 turns... And yes, I am still smarting over that silly king on his small island, invading my long time enemy the sweds......*huffs and puffs* heh

Thread: Re: 1805 Grand Campagin Session 1 - Appalachian Gamers

garysax — 2008-06-12T22:45:00+00:00

Awesome report, please keep updating us.

Thread: Re: 1805 Grand Campagin Session 1 - Appalachian Gamers

wkusau — 2008-06-12T21:38:23+00:00

News from Great Britain.

Report of the aggression of the French in central Europe has been un-welcomed news. Bonaparte appears to want the entire continent. King George has vowed to help his allies, Austria and Prussia, to stop this unprovoked aggression. Our diplomats continue to have discussions with the French ambassador but there appear to be many months of talks before any news will be available. The British siege of Stockholm has been longer than expected due to the French unnecessarily provoking the Swedish to fight to the end. Have heart the siege will be over soon. The seas remain calm under British guidance. Long Live The King.

Thread: Re: 1805 Grand Campagin Session 1 - Appalachian Gamers

Vidarrr — 2008-06-12T20:19:17+00:00

Good start. Hope you keep up the game and the reports. I will enjoy reading it!

Thread: Re: 1805 Grand Campagin Session 1 - Appalachian Gamers

hancock.tom — 2008-06-12T19:44:05+00:00

Thanks for doing this Travis. Great session report.

Thread: 1805 Grand Campaign Session 1 - Appalachian Gamers

BigdaddyTR — 2008-06-12T17:49:00+00:00

Turns played: Initial set up, January and February of 1805.

June 8, 2008

Our local group recently managed to pull together a group to play this great game. We will be playing as often as possible, although that very well may be only once per month. The players and the countries they are controlling are:

Great Britain – Charlie Davis
France – John Moore
Russia – Ken Stamper
Austria – Kris Hall
Prussia – Tom Hancock
Spain- David Gilligan
Turkey – Travis Reynolds

Two of our players have never played before and one has very limited experience. So, our first session went very slowly, as I expect the next couple will as well.

We conducted our initial pre-game diplomacy and the lines began to be drawn between allies and enemies. Surprisingly, there were not any declarations of war during the free pre-game declaration phase. Since nothing had changed, the diplomacy in the actual January turn was somewhat uneventful.

Once again, no major powers declared war on any others. However, several countries looked to expand their empires by invading minor countries. France invaded Romagna, Prussia invaded Mecklenburg, Russia invaded Papacy, Spain invaded Portugal, Turkey invaded Egypt, Great Britain invaded Sweden (the Tsar was not happy, perhaps he should have cared for his own neighborhood before he vacationed in Italy) and finally Austria invaded Bavaria.

Of the countries with forces to be controlled, Great Britain came to the aid of Portugal, Spain came to the aid of Egypt and (unfortunately for Austria) France came to the aid of Bavaria. Napoleon proceeded to take advantage of the opportunity and declare war upon Austria over the invasion of Bavaria. It must be the cream pies. Charles was not happy.

In February, the aggression continued as Russia (in an effort to make the pain of Sweden subside) declared war on Tuscany and Prussia declared war on Duchies. Oh, and France. Prussia came to the aid of his stout ally the Austrians.

Here is a general overview of how it went for each country.

Great Britain – The Brits of course have a large amount of their navy tied up in blockading French fleets into ports. If one should get out with a Corps at this point in the game, it would be disastrous for the English. His aggressive move against Sweden almost backfired as France came to its aid. This gave the French one more fleet that the English had to worry about. Fortunately, his naval engagements with the Swedish went his way. However, the siege of Stockholm has not gone as well. The English infantry is very limited in number, but extremely well trained. They should be able to hold the siege through until they take control of Sweden.

France – Things have gone great for the French. They were able to split the Prussian/Austrian war, forcing one of them to eat the political points for declaring war. France of course also paid for declaring, but he has a much easier time earning them back, as was evidenced by his mopping up of the Austrians in several battles. He certainly has them on the run. However, the Prussians are pushing towards Hanover and Holland, with little standing between them and the French border.

Russia – Russia made it clear during early diplomacy that the Tsar had plans to claim both Sweden and the boot. With the rest of the world either pre-occupied watching France or not powerful enough to have any say in the matter, the time was right for him to follow through on those claims. However, England threw a wrench in the works when he declared war upon Sweden. 70-80% of the Russian forces deployed on the board appear to have been prepared for a campaign into Sweden that is now put on hold. The big question now is what Russia will do. He is not likely to sit idly by and watch things develop. The Russian forces are very formidable and will have a major impact no matter where they go.

Austria – Things have not gone well so far for Austria. In two battles that he stood a good chance of winning, he was out maneuvered by the French, resulting in some notable losses. Now he is on the run and Charles is besieged in Mantua. However, on the bright side France has not gained much ground. Even better, Prussia is now in the war and it looks like that will cause France to fight a two front war (not counting the English who can drop in anywhere, anytime). It won’t be fast and glorious, but there seems to be a faint light at the end of the tunnel.

Prussia – Much like his Austrian ally (our other new player), Prussia is getting a trial by fire. He will learn combat going against the French and both of them are learning all about how expensive it can be to feed those troops during a war…especially in the winter! However, so far the Prussian advances have gone off without a hitch. Now that Prussia is at war with Napoleon that will surely change.

Spain – Spain has kept its nose clean and done what it should. Problem is that the war with Portugal seems to be lagging on much longer than would be preferred. The Spanish really do not have many military advantages (their strength is in their navy), so even Portugal proves to be a test. However, it is just a matter of time before Portugal falls. Where will Spain turn its attention then?

Turkey – Like Spain, Turkey’s moves so far have been pretty standard. Expand into Africa, starting with Egypt. The Egyptians however are no push over and they have proven to be a thorn in Turkey’s side. The only successful battle was in the field at Damietta, where the Turks won handily. However, when they moved on to Cairo, things seem to have gone downhill. Unable to break into the city and ineffective when they do, the war in Egypt is taking longer than planned.

March 1805 and beyond coming soon!

Thread: Re: EiA - June, 2008 - Sydney, Austalia - Place For One More Player.

davidpotter — 2008-04-29T10:30:16+00:00

Hi

I may be interested. I live in Hornsby but I work full time. I can, however be flexable with my times. I have not played in a long and do not own a copy of the game so I would need to have a look at it before playing. Contact me directly at david@the-pottery.org if interested.

Thanks

David

Thread: Re: Are their any differences of significance between the ADG and AH release?

perfalbion — 2008-04-17T18:32:18+00:00

Avalon Hill significantly changed the Rules from the ADG version (generally for the better). They're far more detailed, cover more areas, and generally are more explicit than the ADG version.

The rules and counters are interchangeable, though. So if you can get a copy of the AH rules, you can use the counters and map you currently have. If I recall correctly, Austria's counter mix has one more depot in the ADG version than the AH version.

Thread: Are their any differences of significance between the ADG and AH release?

Wilhammer — 2008-04-17T16:30:17+00:00

I have the ADG release, bought new in 1980. Never played.

So, as I now have opponents interest ind Grand Strategy and Napoleonics, is the ADG version worth pursuing?

Thread: Re: Computer EIA

Red Tribune — 2008-04-11T18:39:35+00:00

My first impressions of the computer game EiANW ("Napoleon's War":
as others noted above, the rules don't match any published edition
of the boardgame EiA) are unfavorable, too.

I installed under Vista. The program, for reasons of its own,
requires Over-the-Shoulder User Account Control security elevation with
an administrator's password to run on a standard user account. (This is
one developer that doesn't pay much attention to Microsoft guidelines:
other gamers have reported issues under Windows XP).

I am running the 1.01 patch, because the now-proferred 1.02 patch is
still considered a "beta" release.

I expected the AI to be stupid (if not as stupid as it turns out).
Getting a computer to play something as big as EiANW is like getting
a dog to talk: you don't criticize its diction.

But this dog don't hunt no more. It talks, sort of, but it's limited
to words like "roof," "rough," and "rowpfh." The AI declares wars
it cannot prosecute, oblivious to the loss of political points.

Whether I can stand the AI long enough to teach myself to navigate
the hostile interface well enough to play with others is the question.

For bookkeeping in some complex games, a computer can be a blessing.
For me, EiANA highlights the ways plain old paper and cardboard can
provide a superior "software" solution, at the cost of a spare bedroom.

Thread: EiA - June, 2008 - Sydney, Austalia - Place For One More Player.

da pyrate — 2008-03-25T08:13:28+00:00

I am in the process of organising an Empires in Arms campaign to be played over 7 consecutive days from June 17 to June 23. The location will be Blacktown.

There is a place for one more player. Please contact me if you are interested.

Da Pyrate.

Thread: Re: Empires in Arms: Requirements not mentioned on the box

wargamer55 — 2008-03-20T22:53:20+00:00

GROGnads wrote:
For some folks, then ALL of this just wasn't enough! When that Napoleon's Battles was made available, and even including the additional "Modules"-Napoleon's Battles Module 1 & Napoleon's Battles Module 2, then someone got the bright notion of transferring the "Battles" FROM "E.i.A." unto the playing surfaces using those. You can hardly imagine how much longer that would entail in conducting anything with the method ascribed then, as each individual "encounter" with substantial 'Armies', will now be laboriously "gamed" in this fashion. It requires going above and beyond what you normally would be having as a result, while I'm certain that the "miniatures" guys would then be having themselves quite the "Field Day" with such. Of course, they'll be wanting to "trot out" any "minis" instead, for sure.

I wonder if anyone ever actually tried that.
I wonder about that with a number of the truly big games. How many times did anyone ever play them.

Thread: Re: Empires in Arms: Requirements not mentioned on the box

Windopaene — 2008-03-20T21:36:58+00:00

GROG, [BGCOLOR=#990000]OMFG[/BGCOLOR], I think 'those' people might be in need of the sanity police!

Thread: Re: Empires in Arms: Requirements not mentioned on the box

GROGnads — 2008-03-20T19:45:11+00:00

For some folks, then ALL of this just wasn't enough! When that Napoleon's Battles was made available, and even including the additional "Modules"-Napoleon's Battles Module 1 & Napoleon's Battles Module 2, then someone got the bright notion of transferring the "Battles" FROM "E.i.A." unto the playing surfaces using those. You can hardly imagine how much longer that would entail in conducting anything with the method ascribed then, as each individual "encounter" with substantial 'Armies', will now be laboriously "gamed" in this fashion. It requires going above and beyond what you normally would be having as a result, while I'm certain that the "miniatures" guys would then be having themselves quite the "Field Day" with such. Of course, they'll be wanting to "trot out" any "minis" instead, for sure.

Thread: Empires in Arms: Requirements not mentioned on the box

wargamer55 — 2008-03-20T18:25:31+00:00

Among the epic wargaming experiences I've had, some of the very best were from taking part in a series of grand campaign games of Empires in Arms.

The entire grand sweep of the Napoleonic Wars is there for the taking in EIA. A would-be-Napoleon can literally change the map of Europe and create the Confederation of the Rhine, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw or the Kingdom of Westphalia.

Indeed, much more than the game actually published as War & Peace, Empires in Arms should have had that title because it's much more epic in scope.

But one might be fooled by the ordinary-sized bookcase box that the game came in. There's a small hint of what's in store on the back of the box, when it says the game can accommodate up to seven players and take up to 200 hours to play.

There are, in fact, a number of requirements left unsaid. (Or if not requirements, very strongly recommendations at least.)
First, you need to have someone in the playing group who has a lot of time on his hands and/or great dedication because someone has to play host to the game. This person will have to be present for every single game session.

That host needs to have a room that can be devoted to holding the game, all set up, for many months on end. (Having to set up and take down the game multiple times will sap everyone's enthusiasm and make it unlikely you'll see it through to the end.

That host can't have kids or cats, because no wargame can lie exposed to those two elemental forces for moths on end and survive.

That host should have no spouse, or a saintly one, because of the aforementioned requirements.

If you can find such a person, be sure to be extra generous with snacks,soda and beer. And a few flowers for the spouse would be in order as well.

From my gaming blog: http://pawnderings.blogspot.com