Resource stockpiles and bases

[Hawk]

... New rulesets might let you play EoS over and over again, with the feeling that you're playing a different game every time.

I have already started thinking on how to create a US Civil War version.

Sorry for diverging from the thread topic. I'll shut up now.

[Kelly's Heros]

Great discussion. I believe if you just want to focus on the military aspects of the game, then manufacturing capacity and supply are the critical elements. You could abstract the resources and provide a technology improvement factor. As all of you know, we can produce far more food today then we could 50 years ago.

What drives military commanders is supply and unit availability. Troops run out of ammo, food, weapons. Supply is far more important to a military commander than resources. Yes they are related, but if we want to focus this game on military aspects, then I vote for manufacturing and supply and move resources to abstraction.

Build bases that can be supplied and have transports that move supplies around. If you look at the battle for the atlantic and the pacific, it was all about getting the right amount of supplies to the right place at the right time. It was also about trying to stop those supply lines and trying to keep them open.

The large battles were based on having foward bases that contained enough supplies to support the big push forward. If the enemy was able to destroy the forward bases, the big pushes had to wait until the bases could be rebuilt and supplied.

This is the one area that abstract wargames miss out on, They presume that it is all about unlimited units that can be created and moved without cost to attack. This is true in many of the RTS games as they also become huge unit battles based on unlimited supply which is great fun I must say, but is complete fantasy and always will be. No matter which generation you live in, any war will be fought and won based on having enough materials and supply at the right place and at the right time to be effective.

With that said. I do enjoy RTS games and don't want EOS to become too complex. I do like the option to turn off resourcing and if there is a way to include supply and bases, it would be a new approach and a differentiator as we move this genre forward.

[dieseltaylor]

N3rull - I mention my experience as a gamer because I think it might have relevance. When evaluating peoples opinions its nice to know if they have any actually experience of the subject matter or are simply adding an opinion.

You will appreciate that we can all love Porsches and Jaguars without being automotive engineers. Some peple will have driven lots of cars and some comparatively few so whose opinion are you going to feel carries more weight in a discussion?

Don't get me wrong I am of the breed who knows what I like in art and am not swayed by experts telling me whats good. However it is nice to know in any discussion what has shaped the viewpoint of the people joining in. I have told you I have played hundreds of different games which does not make me right but also does not make me wrong. Whats your background in gaming? I guess technical.

You can't make a new game that is not a big step forward from the one it is based upon

You see there I would disagree as arguably CMAK is the final refined version of the CM series. It is "new" but has built on the previous CM's. It also has the added advantage of being a great game not just a new game.

Hawk - ages ago I suggested that it would be nice if the game could encompass wind directions and currents so that the age of sail could provide the background to battles for Empires. Rather fun would be that charting the world would not always necessarily provide the currents etc we are used to. Exploration would really be something. And given the limited scope for technical innovation trade might be very interesting.

[rich12545]

NOBODY is suggesting that Brit turn this game into something very simple. We are suggesting the OPTION for that. Does anyone understand the difference? That makes for a flexible game and everyone can play the way he wants.

You all might be surprised how many people still play the original Empire Deluxe or one of them from Killer Bee.

[N3rull]

NOBODY is suggesting that Brit turn this game into something very simple. We are suggesting the OPTION for that. Does anyone understand the difference?

I do understand the difference and I already said I don't care if the option is there or not. Some of the posts, however, indicate that you (as in: some of you forum users) WANT this game simplified to fit the role of a refreshed Empire.

Let's drop it. Brit's gonna make EoS an ownage anyway.

[Plugger]

Goodaye,

You see there I would disagree as arguably CMAK is the final refined version of the CM series. It is "new" but has built on the previous CM's. It also has the added advantage of being a great game not just a new game.

Ahh. Some would agree with you and some wouldn't. But - and it's a biggie - the developers have stated that Combat Mission AK, the last in the series of CM1 games, sold only a fraction of what the first in the series sold. In short people had tuned out.

Same thing with Empire. Lots of vocal people here like yourself who enjoyed it and would like to continue to enjoy a EoS that emulates it as closely as possible (within reason). Which is fine.

But I'd suggest that, like CMAK, nobody else is going to buy it.

Times have changed. You have to move on. Battlefront have done so with the new version of Combat Mission (CMSF) which is a significant departure from CMAK.

Keeping EoS in line with previous incarnations of Empire is a recipe for stagnation and low sales.

So says I.

Cheers,

Plugger

[Rik81]

The closest game to EOS presently on the market (IMHO) is Advanced Tactics of World War II, available from Matrix. What EOS brings to the table, and makes it the better game (again IMHO) is the Resources. The need for them, both to "find" and to "protect" and to "use" for building up your cities and/or war efforts.

[dieseltaylor]

Plugger - Interesting post. I discern a difference between big selling games and great games*. Sometimes they can be both - Gettysburg by Sid Meier, Railroad Tycoon, the Sims. BF obviously want to make money and therefore big-selling is paramount. So breaking down WW2 or moderns to lots of modules is a good way to generate more money from the same engine and research.

Arguably the breadth of the three CMx1 was a commercial error - there was too much playability in them. The TW series will be long buried whilst the CMx1's will still be played. CMAK is a great game even if it sold least.

I do have a beef with BF in that I was quite willing to sell CMBO war-gaming club to club etc but they simply were not interested when I suggested I hold a UK stock - later of course they arranged a Eire distribution system and tied up with CDV. The CDV disk had its terrifying copy protection which did not like lots of CD drives. Running a game even when you were fortunate enough to load onto a hard drive was still laborious. Lets put it this way I ended up buying a CMBB from Battlefront aswell as a CDV. Whether CDV managed to put off players I don't know. Also how do you find out how many copies a distributor makes and sells?

*Rails West!

: )

Any way lots of luck to Brit whatever he does.

[Plugger]

Goodaye,

The closest game to EOS presently on the market (IMHO) is Advanced Tactics of World War II, available from Matrix. What EOS brings to the table, and makes it the better game (again IMHO) is the Resources. The need for them, both to "find" and to "protect" and to "use" for building up your cities and/or war efforts.

I'm a long time player of Advanced tactics and while there a few similarities there is a vast gulf in complexity and strategy.

Advanced tactics features a sophisticated logistics and staff model which leaves the simple resource system in EoS for dead.

Not saying that one is better than the other, only that there is a significant difference between the two. EoS is very much strategy-lite compared to AT.

I think the best comparison for EoS are the previous incarnations of Empire.

Cheers,

Plugger

[Kelly's Heros]

CMAK didn't sell, not because people were tired of CM, but because the theater of war is not as interesting and by the time CMAK came along the engine was dated and the competition was stirring.

Let's face it, had Steve revamped the engine earlier, CM WW2 would still be in the lead, but the CM team is small and it takes them much longer to respond to significant market changes. Once they switched gears to modern combat, CM was old school.

I am a huge CM fan and love the game, but the graphics engine is way out of date, even CMSF is no where near what much of the competition is offering. Look at TOW2.

CM1 sold well because it was the first (no real competition). Once everyone saw what was possible, the number of games exploded and CM no longer had strength in originality and others were doing things better. It's the price of being first to market, and not so easy to stay number 1.

To me EOS is a modernized Empire, which is nice, and much needed in the wargame genre. I guarantee if it is successful, there will be others out there who will do it better and glitzier.

I say, create some unique features that make the game fun. Make it very accessible to all player levels and keep the user interface streamlined and provide lot's of information to the player. The most difficult aspect of strategy games is not enough easy to read information about units, production, movement, and combat.

Just my two cents. By the way - I'm an avid gamer now for almost 30 yrs.

[Brit]

My vision for EOS was to create a game that was simple and understandable enough to draw in new players, without a frustrating level of complexity when you first sit down. I think games can lose a lot of players with that. Part of the solution is not only in the rules, but also in helping the players with a good interface. I see that as the base, default version of the game.

I'm interested in lots of different variations in EOS, as well. Part of that is just curiosity on my part (gee, wouldn't it be cool if...). If some of those variations are more complex, that's great. The added complexity will appeal to more die-hard wargamers, and keep long-time players interested in the game. Once people have learned the basic version of the game, if they want more complexity, that's cool - plus the learning curve won't be so bad because they'll already know how to play the basic version.