The Empires in Arms Play By Forum Pre-Game Discussion Thread

We Have Our Seven!

This thread may be archived and a new one created when play begins or not…dunno). It is for discussion of an upcoming Play By Forum Game of Empires in Arms That I will be moderating. So far, the players are:

Definites:
@Juan_Raigada
@Kolbex
@MiquelRamirez
@Panzeh
@Cuthbert
@Mark_Weston
@Matt_W

Lurkers:
@scottagibson
@Spaced_Cowboy
@strategy
Perky_Goth

Copy and pasted from the General Boardgame Play By Forum Thread:

Yeah, mechanically, what I am thinking is merely using the Vassal Module to “push the cardboard”. All other bookkeeping/accounting will be done in PM threads to which that country’s player and I will have access to. Since the Corps/Fleet contents are limited information until “contact” is made, it defacto makes me the eye in the sky on that data.

Other builds (depots, individual infantry point or Militia builds) will just be placed in those locations in Vassal.

Vassal will just be a big map. I’ll have a master file, and send a copy to whoever’s turn it is to do whatever, qc it for accuracy, and then move it along.

When I used to play EiA PBEM, various moderators would request to be cc’ed on diplomatic emails - for entertainment purposes. I don’t really want to restrict players to Forum PMs for Diplomatic communications, but if they did use the PM function for most Diplomatic communications (say a France - Austrian Embassy Thread and added me as a “cc”) it would certainly make it fun for me and help me with the storytelling aspect of things.

I plan to get a little Jorge Luis Borges meets Thornton Wilder with the storytelling/game as History aspect of things, inventing Apocryphal characters and events to tell the events of the alternate timeline the game will create through the eyes of a Grenadier Captain, a Jesuit Envoy to the Austrian Court, a Mistress of Tsar Alexander II, etc. That sort of thing. So being in on the diplomatic wheelings and dealings should be fun and add spice to that. Though bear in mind, I won’t give up diplomatic information or intelligence to anyone’s advantage or detriment.

OK, it’s time for the discussion thread. I’m already there. Stand by…

Anyone who wants to play, please chime in. As well, let’s consider that above post quote as a starting point for discussion.

This is a fantastic review of the game. I quote from it about the kind of people who would probably enjoy this PBF.

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.

You mean you aren’t using that Matrix Ganes adaptation?? /s

The Game will be called:

Médecine Politique

From:

La saignée fait partie des ingrédients de la médecine politique.

“Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine.”

– Napoleon Bonaparte

Why would I hurt myself so? :)

Has anyone put out an edition after Avalon Hill? /me runs off to bgg

Awesome, I’ll definitely be watching this space.

There’s been some scuttlebutt that ADG’s coming out with a 3rd ed in 2020.

It would be good to have a list of resources in the OP covering the basics:

  • The edition of the rules we’re going to use, and any “supplementary materials”. These ones on BGG look to me as the most “useful”. This cheatsheet looks interesting too.
  • Links to the VASSAL module we will be using, I guess it will be this one.
  • There’s spreadsheets for running the economic phase and calculating the morale of armies in battle. They look build with ancient versions of Excel, maybe they’re usable (or @Navaronegun wants to use his own ones).

The Matrix version @vyshka runs well on Windows 10, but probably is too much of a black box for @Navaronegun to do his storytelling magic. Also I can read the text well on a Surface, on a 4K+ display may not be very usable. I will be personally using it to get used to the boring bits of the game: combat, movement, supply etc.

Did it actually end up in a decent state? From what I remember reading it was a mess at release, and folks playing MP games with it on some forum (I forget which) one more than 1 occasion had to send off the game save to the dev to get past problems.

Edit: To answer my own question. It still sounds like there are issues to resolve, but there has been a new developer working on it the past couple of years in place of Marshall Ellis and he seems to be making some decent progress.

Movement rules work as expected and the economy phase seems to be consistent with the rules too. I haven’t had time for more.

Interested in a test match @vyshka?

Oh, cool, you guys are going to play that Star Wars RTS! I look forward to following the thread.

-Tom

Guys, this is cool, but let’s save this discussion for the Grognard thread or someplace else. The other players signing up are really board game people and really not into the ins and outs of this failed niche software experiment here.

Hey, I’m into both kinds of failed niche experiments.

Are we using the fan expansion that lets you start in 1792?? 😝

I’m in for lurking. ;)

I’ve actually played it. But I think it’s a Bridge too Far. 1805 is good enough.

I also see that some people on BGG wanted to resolve every battle with a tactical-level or miniatures game…playing out the war in real time!

Now having said “1805 is just fine” I’ll make everyone an offer and a confession before we move any further. I’ve played in, but never finished, the below variant for EiA, a War of the Austrian Succession Variant for EiA.

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/1740_scen.html

I’d gladly moderate this, as it is possibly my favorite era of European history and allow for a continuation in a Seven Years War Campaign as the same countries, for which I’d be willing to write scenario continuation rules, if the players wanted to.

http://www.boardgaming.info/EIA-archive/1756_scen.html

Final victory would be based on PPs for both campaigns, but I’d acvount for redrawn borders, minor ststuses, etc. based on the results of the first Campaign.

This would require a modification to the counters and maps in the Vassal version currently available, but given the expertise available here at Qt3 and that I could fin outbtjere in the Grognard ether, I think that isn’t a big deal, especially given we are looking at a late January-early February start.

By the way, I’d positively do cartwheels of joy if I was moderating the Frederick game. Amongst the EiA-ers, it’s considered a bit more balanced than the 1792 or 1805 scenarios.

So let’s vote. 1792, 1805, or 1740 with an option for 1756?

I’m fine with any of them honestly. Is the 1740 scenario also seven players?

Yes, seven. Vote for one of them though please. ). We must decide. Take your time if you want to read through and consider.

@Juan_Raigada you are tracking this thread as well, now, right? Just checking…haven’t heard from you here. :)