RE: Revolutionary Thoughts

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Revolutionary Thoughts

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/30/2008 2:25:22 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Hello Lads.

Been a while since I have revisited my favorite topic. And, of course, it is just a coincidence that I wrote the initial postings.
Now that we are onto version 3.0 and we have made lots of improvements to game play, I would like to put these ideas back in front of us all (Marshall, that means you :)) for POTENTIAL scenario editor options. Obviously, this list is by no means all-inclusive. My purpose here is not to ram these ideas down anyone's throat. Rather, it is to bring up the concept of a scenario editor and, perhaps the inclusion of game options that can allow a game to be tailored to a particular groups preferences.

From my original post:

I was wondering how hard it would be to recreate through some creative programming (Bless you, Marshall!) some nifty house rules that we used to employ. For all those Grognards who may be saying harrumph, please note that all I suggest should be optional so if ya don't like it, just don't use it. And remember what happened to the old style armies at Valmy...

How hard would these be to program?

Minor Country Improved Morale with training. (Yours truly wrote his MA thesis on this little matter for the Portuguese. Moreover, I have had some first hand exposure to training/modernizing certain armies myself.) The old AH rules allowed for an optional rule the Brits to improve the Portuguese and the Hanoverians to a 4.0 morale with 24 months of continuous training. I would love to see other nations have the option of training them as well to say 0.5 below their own morale. So the French to 3.5 and the Spanish et alias to 2.5. I would expand this to other nations as well up to a certain limit. I would allow the gaming group to select what countries (say Holland, Denmark for example) could be trained and to what level and by whom.

Increased Corps Size. Allow nations to spend money and time to increase certain of their Corps. Must be in a step function and within reason.

Increase number of corps a nation can produce. Start with their smallest and perhaps could be improved as noted above.
Could apply to some minors as well.

Increase number of depots with expenditures of time and money.

Increase number of fleets with expenditures of time and money.

Allow certain minors (e.g. North Africa) to build light fleets.

Improve fortifications or harbor guns with expenditure of time/money.

I would also consider having a portion of the Privateer monies go to the privateering state. This was the common practice of the day.

added option not from original post: limit use of North African Manpower to the Turks as no other power was able to use their manpower despite repeated occupations

added option: not from original post: Increase guerrilla geographies to reflect historical realities (Portugal, Naples, Sicily, much of North Africa)

Semper Fi
Mardonius

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 31

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/30/2008 2:56:43 PM

Edfactor

Posts: 106
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I read the first page of this discussion and i think one point was never made, that it would be pretty hard to do this for you. It would take many hours of programming and just not be worth the effort to do.

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 32

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/30/2008 5:20:17 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Lads.

Been a while since I have revisited my favorite topic. And, of course, it is just a coincidence that I wrote the initial postings.
Now that we are onto version 3.0 and we have made lots of improvements to game play, I would like to put these ideas back in front of us all (Marshall, that means you :)) for POTENTIAL scenario editor options. Obviously, this list is by no means all-inclusive. My purpose here is not to ram these ideas down anyone's throat. Rather, it is to bring up the concept of a scenario editor and, perhaps the inclusion of game options that can allow a game to be tailored to a particular groups preferences.

From my original post:

I was wondering how hard it would be to recreate through some creative programming (Bless you, Marshall!) some nifty house rules that we used to employ. For all those Grognards who may be saying harrumph, please note that all I suggest should be optional so if ya don't like it, just don't use it. And remember what happened to the old style armies at Valmy...

How hard would these be to program?

Minor Country Improved Morale with training. (Yours truly wrote his MA thesis on this little matter for the Portuguese. Moreover, I have had some first hand exposure to training/modernizing certain armies myself.) The old AH rules allowed for an optional rule the Brits to improve the Portuguese and the Hanoverians to a 4.0 morale with 24 months of continuous training. I would love to see other nations have the option of training them as well to say 0.5 below their own morale. So the French to 3.5 and the Spanish et alias to 2.5. I would expand this to other nations as well up to a certain limit. I would allow the gaming group to select what countries (say Holland, Denmark for example) could be trained and to what level and by whom.

Increased Corps Size. Allow nations to spend money and time to increase certain of their Corps. Must be in a step function and within reason.

Increase number of corps a nation can produce. Start with their smallest and perhaps could be improved as noted above.
Could apply to some minors as well.

Increase number of depots with expenditures of time and money.

Increase number of fleets with expenditures of time and money.

Allow certain minors (e.g. North Africa) to build light fleets.

Improve fortifications or harbor guns with expenditure of time/money.

I would also consider having a portion of the Privateer monies go to the privateering state. This was the common practice of the day.

added option not from original post: limit use of North African Manpower to the Turks as no other power was able to use their manpower despite repeated occupations

added option: not from original post: Increase guerrilla geographies to reflect historical realities (Portugal, Naples, Sicily, much of North Africa)

Semper Fi
Mardonius

Many of these things would not be hard to do and in fact are pretty interesting ideas!
My biggest problem with some items might be the changing of the map data so that port gun / fortification values are are not hard coded on the map but written by me since they would be dynamic.

Appreciate the input.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 33

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/30/2008 7:03:27 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Great to hear Marshall.

You have a refreshing attitude for someone who has been such repeated waterboardings.

For what it is worth, if I were the one who was assuming this task list, I would try and do the easier things first. If some things like fortress/port gun values are harder to do, I would leave those items for later, perhaps after some smart folks (e.g. Del/Jimmer) had chimed in on possible ways to do so.

Anyway, I love to see some of these things in 1.04 or 1.05.

Semper Fidelis,

Mardonius aka "the Mad Sultan"

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 34

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/30/2008 8:56:38 PM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

Just, try to make the game more EIA.
Including the EIA optinal rules should have the higher priority.

Before adding houserules.
Some that could makes the game something far from the EIA, players are requesting.

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 7/30/2008 8:58:05 PM >

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 35

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/30/2008 9:13:02 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

Bresh, I agree - more like EIA FIRST....chrome, MAYBE�later.�

There is enough EIA (Engaged in Argument) between the AI and PBEM camps....

< Message edited by AresMars -- 7/30/2008 9:24:04 PM >

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 36

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 12:12:20 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

Yes, I also agree. It would be really nice to sit down and play my Empires in Arms PC game and ACTUALLY be able to play EMPIRES IN ARMS..... WOW, what a concept!!

(in reply to AresMars)

Post #: 37

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 1:27:50 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Gents:

I respect what you three are saying. And I have been there. I have played EiA since 1987. This noted, we are in the real world and if we want to make this product viable it has to have a broad appeal. That means it has to appeal to more than just a few EiA purists.

Much of what makes a game a success is vigorous enjoyment by those who are playing the game. To this end, if we want to provide for EiANW to be a success it should be fun, varied, and not be bound by pre-ordained EiA fundamentalist strictures. We should not be nay-saying potential new ideas just because they are not board game version EiA. Otherwise, we will find ourselves, eventually, with that close to EiA clone game when we are all sitting in the nursing home and we will be the only ones who will have any interest in playing it. Pinochle anyone?

Marshall has commented that many of these OPTIONs would not be that hard to program. So if you want to try and recapture that elusive goal of 1985 Avalon Hill/ADG's Board Game version of EiA, you could just turn off these options. So where is the objection to pursuing these -- or perhaps other better -- options? Do we want to continue to bang our heads around to try and get a perfect AI? I don't think a challenging AI is obtainable anytime soon.

Del and others are slogging away assiduously on fixing the intricacies of the program as it is. There is only so much that they can do to make very marginal improvements. If there is little cost in making significant OPTIONAL variations, then why not do so?

And by the way, I don't object to anyone shooting down my ideas because they are ill thought out... that kind of criticism can have merit. But to try and take a Polaroid of EiA in 1985 and say "That is what I want and no different"... well that is not going to create a marketable and sustainable product.

Semper Fidelis,

Mardonius

_____________________________

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 38

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 2:49:49 PM

AresMars

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline

Mardonius,

I have no objection to additional changes and options being added in the future, in fact I would also be interested in them, however, at the moment, I bought a product the suggested that I would be able to play Empires In Arms by E-mail with my friends and other people on the Internet.

EIANW is striving to filll that need (and its commitment) and I can be patient and wait while Marshall moves towards it. On this, I feel that Martix is working hard on this.

Your broad appeal comment, though valid, does not apply to any of the people who I know that bought the game for the same reason I did....to play EIA online.....

With this in mind, our group of friends (perhaps EIA purists) are more likely the MANY then the few you alude to have as much right to request that our interests be kept focused on.

I have not seen a large demand for CHROME OPTIONS (my words) except from you (as seen in this thread), and though I respect the positive attutude that Marshall displayed in his response, and your obvious desire to see increased options, I remain focused on what was already PROMISED by Matrix....

Once the EIA PURISTS are satisfied, and once the AI CAMP are satisfied, then perhaps the additional OPTIONS camp will be able to make requests.....

At the moment, the PURISTS/PBEM and AI groups seem to be the largest number of forum commentators...

IMHO, I was not shooting down your ideas, and I agree that the CHROME comment was unnecessary, I was agreeing with the comments Bresh made.

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 39

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 3:00:15 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

There is enough EIA (Engaged in Argument) between the AI and PBEM camps....

Frankly there is more than enough, and it has become downright juvenile. Marshall and Matrix appear to be "on track" and committed to providing a quality game that should eventually satisfy most everyone - PBEM, TCP/IP, AI/solitaire, EiA purists, EiH variants, options, etc., etc., etc. Let these guys work.

I refuse to waste any more time arguing with the few who seem to insist that their pet rock feature gets priority over someone else's feature. Marshall and Matrix are doing OK and I'll be patient while the bug tracker list is slowly and surely worked off. If it takes another year, so be it.

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 40

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 3:17:48 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Gents:

There is always room for differing opinions. I don't think it wise for anyone to try and restrict discussions to a particular vein or veins. And please don't construe that I am suggesting that Marshall et alias should stop their current efforts and take my new suggested tack. But in any operational process there will be lag time/lead time/hit a brick wall time. So in order to optimize the product, some of these opportunities should be engaged to broaden the appeal of the product.

If I may, let me point out some hard facts to us all: At latest count there were 842 redirects to purchase EiA NW. At $70 a purchase and a 90% purchase per redirect rate (probably high), this equates to about $53k US. Assuming that 50% of the money actually goes to Matrix and can cover salary, publication, expenses etc, that means that over the past four or five years there is about $26,500 to go into covering development costs. And so our beloved EiANW is not sustainable at this current customer base.

So something needs to be done lest this product die on the vine of reaching for the perfect AI and/or EiA makeover.
Something revolutionary perhaps. My ideas were an attempt to make this product have a broader appeal. Maybe they, by themselves, are too feeble in this regard. But something has to be done.

Semper Fidelis,
Mardonius

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 41

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 4:39:55 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

There is enough EIA (Engaged in Argument) between the AI and PBEM camps....

Frankly there is more than enough, and it has become downright juvenile. Marshall and Matrix appear to be "on track" and committed to providing a quality game that should eventually satisfy most everyone - PBEM, TCP/IP, AI/solitaire, EiA purists, EiH variants, options, etc., etc., etc. Let these guys work.

I refuse to waste any more time arguing with the few who seem to insist that their pet rock feature gets priority over someone else's feature. Marshall and Matrix are doing OK and I'll be patient while the bug tracker list is slowly and surely worked off. If it takes another year, so be it.

At this rate, I'll be putting my unborn children through college when this game is finally "satisfying" (aka: actually Empires in Arms). That's not a knock on Marshall. He's a one man show. A game of this magnitude really needs a development team, so it's more a knock on Matrix if anything.

I just think there are still MANY MANY MANY bugs to fix (that alone should take a year or two). Then top that with the AI people, PBEM people, IP people, Options people and Editor people and you are looking at a lifelong project.

A major problem is that the current design (from Marshall's posts) seems too hard coded to get back to the original EiA, so I'm discouraged that we will ever actually get a PC EiA game ever, from anyone.

MARDONIUS: No one is trying to "restrict" anything, I'm not sure what you are talking about. All we want is a way to play Empires in Arms, you know, the game this game is named after. Why is that so bad? You can have all your pretty bows and ribbons and bells and whistles too. I really don't care. If this game has 100000000000000 options, that's great. I won't use them, but that's great. I just would love to play EiA.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 7/31/2008 4:40:45 PM >

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 42

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 5:33:45 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Neverman:

I must defend Matrix since they are all my friends and I love those guys! Even from a buisness perspective they have brought this game EiANW (Blessed buy the EiA creators) to the PC which no one else dared try. I'm not claiming that she's perfect but many are having fun. You will not see a development team that comes close to Microsoft, etc. BUT it will grow. This was a monster to do and Matrix Games stood (And still stand) behind me all the way through all of the issues that we had. I am forever thankful to them.

This engine will be a very expandable, configurable, flexible engine that will be alive for the next 5-7 years with a roadmap of plans for scenarios, different games, options, IP, etc. Now that's a general statement of flexibility. You can get granular enough to say that simulataneous reinforcement execution is not possible in this engine design but I can also say that we can add EiA classic scenarios with the classic map, 1792 scenarios, etc.

The design of EiANW makes it difficult to ramp EiANW back to EiA but it is very possible to develop a EiA classic scenario with the same engine. We are seriously considering this because of people such as youself.

If you think you will be sending kids to college before this becomes reality then you better look at adoption of an older child and starting your 529s quickly LOL!

I do respect your opinion and you are being heard. Please keep your thoughts coming since they do help shape our future efforts.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 43

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 6:03:50 PM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Gents:

There is always room for differing opinions. I don't think it wise for anyone to try and restrict discussions to a particular vein or veins. And please don't construe that I am suggesting that Marshall et alias should stop their current efforts and take my new suggested tack. But in any operational process there will be lag time/lead time/hit a brick wall time. So in order to optimize the product, some of these opportunities should be engaged to broaden the appeal of the product.

If I may, let me point out some hard facts to us all: At latest count there were 842 redirects to purchase EiA NW. At $70 a purchase and a 90% purchase per redirect rate (probably high), this equates to about $53k US. Assuming that 50% of the money actually goes to Matrix and can cover salary, publication, expenses etc, that means that over the past four or five years there is about $26,500 to go into covering development costs. And so our beloved EiANW is not sustainable at this current customer base.

So something needs to be done lest this product die on the vine of reaching for the perfect AI and/or EiA makeover.
Something revolutionary perhaps. My ideas were an attempt to make this product have a broader appeal. Maybe they, by themselves, are too feeble in this regard. But something has to be done.

Semper Fidelis,
Mardonius

Sorry Mardonius.
Personally I do not agree, i would not buy the game if it was not trying to be EIA.
Most of my friends are still waiting to buy it, since they dont think its enough EIA yet.
So if you start making devarations, i doubt those ever come and buy.
There are other war games you know, who satisfy other wishes.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 44

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 6:48:06 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Neverman:

To clarify, My comment on restrictions not being wise was based on AresMares comment:

"Once the EIA PURISTS are satisfied, and once the AI CAMP are satisfied, then perhaps the additional OPTIONS camp will be able to make requests....."

I, for one, don't intend to remain silent when I can see ways of improving the product.

Semper Fi,
Mardonius

_____________________________

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 45

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 6:52:24 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Bresh:

I appreciate your sentiments. That noted, no where in my comments did I ever suggest that EiA be abandoned. Or did I not convey my thoughts cogently? I thought went to the effort to CAPITALIZE my suggetions that options be OPTIONAL. You and your EiA purist friends would have nothing to worry about if my suggestions were pursued.

best
Mardonius

_____________________________

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 46

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 7:56:00 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Neverman:

To clarify, My comment on restrictions not being wise was based on AresMares comment:

"Once the EIA PURISTS are satisfied, and once the AI CAMP are satisfied, then perhaps the additional OPTIONS camp will be able to make requests....."

I, for one, don't intend to remain silent when I can see ways of improving the product.

Semper Fi,
Mardonius

I wouldn't want anyone to remain silent, but please keep in mind that your "improving" might not be the same as mine. :)

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 47

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 7:57:04 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I've not met a silent EiAer yet LOL (Me included)!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 48

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 8:24:35 PM

eske

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I've not met a silent EiAer yet LOL (Me included)!

I am !

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 49

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 8:40:58 PM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Bresh:

I appreciate your sentiments. That noted, no where in my comments did I ever suggest that EiA be abandoned. Or did I not convey my thoughts cogently? I thought went to the effort to CAPITALIZE my suggetions that options be OPTIONAL. You and your EiA purist friends would have nothing to worry about if my suggestions were pursued.

best
Mardonius

Mardonius, you wrote you want the game out to a broader spectrum of pc-gamers by adding new non eia-features.

Your so called improvements sound like downgrades to me.
People will look at the game description etc, and if they look for EIA, and read your so called improvements they might pass on. I know i might.
And just play something else.
Also those pc-gamers you look for, might not be looking for a EIA-type game.

I dont think there is a large market for a EIA-devirated new game.
First you might dissapoint the EIA-gamers,
and second the block of new commers might want to change the game even more..

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 50

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 9:34:30 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Bresh:

As I ruminate over your comments, I can't but help to think one of three things is happening here:

(1) I failed to make my point to you that the options that I am advocating are optional and would not in any way detract from persons who want to play fundamentalistly pure Empires in Arms, as in the board game, with no house rules; or

(2) You are somehow not clearly communicating a reasonable difference in opinion and I am indeed overlooking some draw back to options being done when other improvements are, temporarily, at a standstill; or

(3) You are being argumentative for the sake of the last word or similar cussedness.

Please help me understand if I am somehow missing some subtlety or am just not seeing your plain-as-day logic.
Differing opinions are allowed.

best,
Mardonius

_____________________________

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 51

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 7/31/2008 10:25:34 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

You've been trying to hash it out with Mardonius for a while now. These optional rules are NOT non-Eia. I also have played since...hmmm, jeez about 1989 or so (a recent hiatus that the PC game has now filled) and we ALWAYS played with some optionals. ALWAYS. Every game that I played or saw played (all across LA, Georgia and South Carolina, via snail mail and via the internet) has played with some optionals or additional rules.

So, Marshall, keep up with fixing the bugs. Work on AI and the interface. Scenarios and other campaigns are great. But, as time permits, please, think about some options, that people can choose to use or not to use at their discretion.

Rock on Mardonius!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Bresh:

As I ruminate over your comments, I can't but help to think one of three things is happening here:

(1) I failed to make my point to you that the options that I am advocating are optional and would not in any way detract from persons who want to play fundamentalistly pure Empires in Arms, as in the board game, with no house rules; or

(2) You are somehow not clearly communicating a reasonable difference in opinion and I am indeed overlooking some draw back to options being done when other improvements are, temporarily, at a standstill; or

(3) You are being argumentative for the sake of the last word or similar cussedness.

Please help me understand if I am somehow missing some subtlety or am just not seeing your plain-as-day logic.
Differing opinions are allowed.

best,
Mardonius

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 52

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 7:58:03 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

You've been trying to hash it out with Mardonius for a while now. These optional rules are NOT non-Eia. I also have played since...hmmm, jeez about 1989 or so (a recent hiatus that the PC game has now filled) and we ALWAYS played with some optionals. ALWAYS. Every game that I played or saw played (all across LA, Georgia and South Carolina, via snail mail and via the internet) has played with some optionals or additional rules.

So, Marshall, keep up with fixing the bugs. Work on AI and the interface. Scenarios and other campaigns are great. But, as time permits, please, think about some options, that people can choose to use or not to use at their discretion.

Rock on Mardonius!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Bresh:

As I ruminate over your comments, I can't but help to think one of three things is happening here:

(1) I failed to make my point to you that the options that I am advocating are optional and would not in any way detract from persons who want to play fundamentalistly pure Empires in Arms, as in the board game, with no house rules; or

(2) You are somehow not clearly communicating a reasonable difference in opinion and I am indeed overlooking some draw back to options being done when other improvements are, temporarily, at a standstill; or

(3) You are being argumentative for the sake of the last word or similar cussedness.

Please help me understand if I am somehow missing some subtlety or am just not seeing your plain-as-day logic.
Differing opinions are allowed.

best,
Mardonius

Options from the non standard rulebook, has to be lower priority than any from the EIA rulebook.
I do have a right to have my own opinion and like i write Personally and when i dislike it I can raise my voice.
I dont like the option to change morale for minors(beside Hanover/Portugal as of the rule, or Ottoman Empire). This never happend in the real world.

Beeing able to change corps sizes, number of depots, number of Fleets and improve fortifications.
These are not options i never liked. We are still miles from the standard EIA.
Beside you 2 i havent meet anyone using them..

I have nothing against Mardonius, but I can say I dont agree on his wishes, when I feel alot of the game is still missing.
If you been following other threads, i been saying the same thing in other idea threats. Witch in general was the message
fix EIA rules first, before adding new options.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 53

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 9:29:23 AM

DCWhitworth

Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

I dont like the option to change morale for minors(beside Hanover/Portugal as of the rule, or Ottoman Empire). This never happend in the real world.

It *did* happen in the real world (with Hanover and Portugal) why shouldn't it be able to other minors nations ? Or are you saying that only the exact things that happened in reality should be allowed to happen in the game ? I would say why should it be restricted to only Hanover and Portugal ? Granted the rule might need to be reworked but as a principle I think it is good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

If you been following other threads, i been saying the same thing in other idea threats. Witch in general was the message
fix EIA rules first, before adding new options.

Yes we heard you, there's no need to go on about it. In principle most of us agree with you. But Mardonius is trying to start a debate on possible features for the future. He's *not* suggesting that these things should take priority over everything else, he's just putting forward some ideas.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 54

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 9:33:43 AM

DCWhitworth

Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

I think the notion to change corps size etc is interesting but such things would probably only work if they had increased maintenance associated with them. e.g. It takes time and money to increase your corps sizes, but when you do they cost more to maintain.

Actually to under pin this concept I think the economic system would need to be revised and increased in complexity. I really like some of the concepts in Europa Universalis board game such as economic stability.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 55

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 11:39:12 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

I dont like the option to change morale for minors(beside Hanover/Portugal as of the rule, or Ottoman Empire). This never happend in the real world.

It *did* happen in the real world (with Hanover and Portugal) why shouldn't it be able to other minors nations ? Or are you saying that only the exact things that happened in reality should be allowed to happen in the game ? I would say why should it be restricted to only Hanover and Portugal ? Granted the rule might need to be reworked but as a principle I think it is good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

If you been following other threads, i been saying the same thing in other idea threats. Witch in general was the message
fix EIA rules first, before adding new options.

Yes we heard you, there's no need to go on about it. In principle most of us agree with you. But Mardonius is trying to start a debate on possible features for the future. He's *not* suggesting that these things should take priority over everything else, he's just putting forward some ideas.

As i wrote "Beside" Hanover/Portugal.
Im not 100% against added options at one time, but EIANW still has alot needed to be done before.
It did not happen with other minors, of whom plenty had joined France, but none improved by doing so. They where not willing to addopt different organization of their armies.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 56

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 11:46:31 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

I don't think there's any harm in discussing options, as long as you all keep in mind that our top priorities remain:

1. Bugs
2. Things that hinder vs. AI play
3. Things that hinder PBEM play

After that, there are things like the game itself, for example the scenario editor, making any "deviations" we can either optional or creating a EIA Classic scenario that avoids them. Obviously, some of these things happen in parallel but discussing something doesn't mean that it's suddenly become the top priority.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 57

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 12:40:19 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I totally agree with Erik. Keep option ideas coming but understand that it doesn't not change my focus BUT I do take notes of good ideas and there is always room for a good idea :-)

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 58

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 1:07:21 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Great Points Erik

I am, first and foremost, a businessman. OK... maybe that is somewhat inaccurate as I am also a Marine so I think about killing bad people probably more frequently than making a profit, but perhaps that is just another kind of balance sheet.

What I am trying to do in this thread is to press for the continued evolution of this game. I am already a true believer. And I'd love to see it mature into an economically viable product.

Clearly working out Bugs should be a priority. There is, I would offer, at times a risk of diminishing marginal returns. I posit that if the bug is minor and perhaps two or ten relatively easy optional/scenario editor changes might be made in the same time and effort, then at times -- particularly when waiting for the collection of data from potentially conflicting other changes or when engaged in other operational pauses, then the pursuit of the options might be the wisest choice.

I am, honestly, a bit skeptical, that you will ever get a truly satisfactory AI. Certainly one that can help instruct the fundamentals of the game... but to create a mob of sneaky SOBs... well, that would be a work of art that akin to gang of Michelangelo�s Davids with switchblades. I guess it depends on how one defines satisfactory.

Something you and Marshall (thank you) might want to consider for the PBEM enhancement is an option (witness OPTION) that allows for things like simultaneous Reinforcement phasing... or perhaps simultaneous except for France who can then make their reinforcements... Automatically skipping Prussian/Austrian Naval etc and perhaps certain other phases by a player's checked choice block. Anything that saves time would be welcome. Fundamentalist EiA Naysayers note: these suggestions are suggested options.

I believe that I and others have suggested similar vein ideas before and have been breshed aside as not being faithful to the true EiA recipe. This criticism is correct; such changes would not be exactly in line with the EiA game of old. But it would speed things up. Already games will take multiple years. Such a game length reduces the appeal of the game to a very rarefied audience. And this means less of a return on your investment. For gamers, it means fewer opponents and, one day perhaps, having to live with program glitches that never will go away as Tex/Marshall has ridden into the sunset onto other projects. I would look at what games out there --board or PC -- that have been hugely successful and adopt a measure of their recipe to glean a larger market share.

So, I am kicking the ball of new ideas/OPTIONS down the court again. Glad to play whack-a-mullah with the next EiA fundamentalist who suggests that going back to pure EiA with no deviations possible is the best course of action for the viable future of this already splendid game.

Semper Fidelis,

Mardonius

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 59

RE: Revolutionary Thoughts - 8/1/2008 3:13:54 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I don't think there's any harm in discussing options, as long as you all keep in mind that our top priorities remain:

1. Bugs
2. Things that hinder vs. AI play
3. Things that hinder PBEM play

After that, there are things like the game itself, for example the scenario editor, making any "deviations" we can either optional or creating a EIA Classic scenario that avoids them. Obviously, some of these things happen in parallel but discussing something doesn't mean that it's suddenly become the top priority.

Regards,

- Erik

The only problem I see here is that the AI play is never going to be good, so at what point do you guys stop working on the AI and start working on making the PBEM (or heaven forbid, internet play) better?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 60