User Reviews (1 - 6 of 6)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Real-time battles - a shortfall

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 49
Date: July 04, 2004
Author: Amazon User

A strategy war game without real-time battles is not for me. The TOTAL WAR concept is my idea of the ideal strategy war game - a strategy "board" game with battles in real time.

Response to Chessboa

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 41
Date: June 30, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Even though i have yet to play this game, most other Matrix games are low budget and low quality. That is why i rate it 2 stars.

To most people, hex-style, or 2D games are very uninviting and aren't the fast action shooters that use graphics to grab your attention. The best game that i have played is Hearts of Iron, by Strategy First. This game, although 2D, is the most strategic and fun to play game i have ever played, but it doesnt have a ton of fans due to the low-end graphics.

Board Game was fun; looking for software to make it better

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 18 / 23
Date: March 21, 2004
Author: Amazon User

EIA is the best Napoleon era war game I've played. It's complicated, but the game play is rather simple. The diplomacy the biggest attribute of this game. The fighting is secondary to being a shrewd statesman with a sound strategic plan. Get wrapped up in an intractable war and you will suffer - even if you're France.

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 during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. Playable either solitaire, by email or over the Internet. It's a Corps level game with full diplomatic options that allows players complete freedom to fight it out for control of Europe any way they want to. The map is divided up into provinces with general terrain characteristics as well as economic and manpower values.

The game moves in monthly turns where diplomacy and builds are conducted. Within the monthly turns there are a variable number of impulses where corps and fleets move about. All movement is simultaneous with battles occurring at the end of the impulse.

Battles are resolved by players both picking a strategy and fighting a series of rounds in an attempt to break the enemy. Countries can make and break alliances, declare war, invade minor nations, propose peace terms, and build different type armies. Many historical leaders from the period are included to command corps and fleets, from Admiral Nelson to Marshall Davout to the Pashas of the Ottoman Empires.

The object is to accumulate as much "glory" or victory points as possible. Your glory points are derived from the political state of your empire at the end of every turn. Lose a bunch of battles or break alliances and you suffer political points and ultimately earn fewer glory points. Win battles and you gain political points improving your glory point earning power. You can even invest money back into your economy to bolster the political situation - something you may need to do if you hit rock bottom (aka political instability). The winner of the game is the Empire that has maximized the amount of "glory" points it receives throughout the game. Different empires have different victory point goals thereby allowing countries other than France and England an opportunity to win.

I have to admit, I have only played the board game. Apparently the computer version is non-existent. If it ever does come to fruition, it would be a triumph if it did nothing other than solve the administrative complexities of the board game.

A Response to Chessboa

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 46 / 53
Date: January 26, 2004
Author: Amazon User

First --since this game has yet to be released and I am not a beta-tester--I have not played this game (yet). This rating applies to the board game and the estimated potential of the to-be-released computer game under development by Matrix Games.

I feel compelled to respond to Chesboa "review" as to the relevance of the game's format and hopefully to counterbalance that viewpoint with a little bit of reality. It is clear in C's review that he/she has an agenda--to promote 3D gaming, whether or not that is the appropriate forum for a particular game.

I have played wargames for decades (long before there was such a thing as a "computer game"). Since the PC revolution of the mid-1980s, I have experienced firsthand the development of computer games from DOS to Windows XP. To say that this game shouldn't be bought simply because it doesn't incorporate 3D graphics is analogous to saying you shouldn't buy a particular lawn mower because it doesn't sport a Hemi engine. The real question to ask is: Is the presentation format and gaming engine appropriate to the purpose and scope of the game?

Empires in Arms (EiA) is, IMHO, the best strategic-level Napoleonic wargame ever developed. Though a bit complex, it is not terribly complicated, and that's a wonderful (and all-too-difficult) balance to strike...it is organized at the Corps level, and those Corps were the WMDs of their day...the right arm of France, England, Austria, Prussia, Turkey, Russia, and Spain (the seven major powers in the game) as they furthered their national ambitions beyond their own borders. While the focus is on strategic warfare (with a bit of tactics mixed in when the Corps meet on the battlefield), the real joy comes from the political machinations of the national leaders (the players). Politics is the singular most important aspect of the game, and the most fun...striking bargains (and sometimes breaking them) is the heart of EiA. Maneuvering Corps around a world map is merely a means to the end of political negotiation. All is supported by a manpower/monetary system that reins in ambition with reality, and the consequences of your actions are tracked on a Political Chart. At the end of the game, the player with the most political points (not the most armies, necessarily) is the winner.

Unlike a game like, say, Medal of Honor, 3D graphics in EiA would be totally superfluous-eye candy at best. The tactics in EiA are minimal, although very important. When armies meet, each commander chooses a "chit" such as "outflank" or "echelon," and a series of die rolls determines the victor-this is the limit of tactics in the game). EiA is a strategic (God's-eye-view) game of global conquest, not a first-person shooter. To say that you shouldn't buy the game simply because it doesn't support 3D graphics is a silly argument on its face. If you're looking for Medal of Honor, EiA isn't your game. If you're looking for an intelligent game about the Napoleonic Wars that works on the economic, strategic, and most especially the political level, then EiA (the board game) is for you. How well Matrix interprets the board game is yet to be seen, but the game has been several years in development, and the message boards are encouraging. I urge you to visit the forums at matrixgames.com or do a Google search on "Empires in Arms" to find out more about both the board game and its interpretation currently in development by Matrix.

A Long Awaited Game

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 22 / 28
Date: January 12, 2004
Author: Amazon User

This game is the computer version of the boardgame, "Empires in Arms," Published by ADG. This game is a multiplayer strategy game re-enacting the Napoleonic conflict of the early 19th century. Finding seven players to "move pieces around a board" is at times difficult... particularly if you live in South Dakota.

While we have yet to see the quality of the AI... early reports are optimistic. This game will allow you to play a fantastic boardgame without the difficulty of arranging a "meeting."

Send the Game Publishers a message... BUY this game, simply because it is a well thought out and designed game. Maybe it doesn't have three dimensional views of "aiming a cannon at the oncoming cavalry." But it will teach you about Napoleonic strategy. It will let you play a true multiplayer game without a plethora of warm bodies. It will update a classic boardgame.

Buy it, and enjoy.

Only A 2D Counter Game - Why ??

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 85
Date: January 11, 2004
Author: Amazon User

1st generation strategy games:
In the 'old' days when I was a young laddy we use to play turn-based strategy games out of the box like 'Squad Leader' which involved small cardboard '2-Dimensional'( 2D ) counters placed on hexagons covering the map. The downfall of these games was the length of time it took to make the calculations for each turn.

2nd generation games:
Then computer software came along and recreated the 2D game and made the laborious calculations for us. This was a huge happening in the strategy game world!

3rd generation games:
As computer hardware improved publishers came out with 3D software graphics and high speed calculations. Again, this was a huge happening and is currently '2004' the standard by which all strategy games are judged.

Unfortunately, "Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815" by Matrix Games is a computer software 2nd generation 2D game.

Why would a game maker do this, you may ask ??

It is done because it is more effective and efficient, to make a 2D game. It costs them less to make a 2D game, thus increasing profits!

However, the downfall is you will not get:

1) The immersion level of a 3D game;
2) The reality of a 3D game; and
3) The tactics and strategy of a 3D game.

There are many 3rd generation 3D games on the market that should be considered before buying this game. Send the publishers a message:

DON'T BUY OUTDATED SOFTWARE !!!

Review Page: 1 

Actions