RE: Is This Game Playable Yet?

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: Is This Game Playable Yet?

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: Is This Game Playable Yet?

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 2:56:36 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Ok, one last try because it seems like what I posted is being exaggerated. I did not say "you have to read the forums before you buy the game". I said "if you see a feature point or something in the brief description that raises a question for you, you should check the forums". In general, I think reading the forums of a game you are interested in is a good idea, but no it is not required. The forums are here for more detailed discussion and feedback/interaction with customers, which is actually something that a lot of companies completely avoid.

I want to be clear that I understand that a few of you feel that we mislead you. I can understand that while disagreeing with the premise that we deliberately tried to do so. I know that we did not _intend_ to mislead. I know that the feature point I mentioned was intended to note the EIH changes and that's been there from the first day of release. If we are guilty of anything it may be that we assumed that point was clear enough, given the years of development and discussion and public disclosure of changes. I regret if a customer came along only after release, did not understand that feature point, did not read the forum and now feels that we deceived them.

The fact remains that this is the officially licensed EIA adaptation, with ADG's blessing both before and after release. We understand that some customers are not happy with the EIH rules that were included. As a result, we are planning to create a "classic EIA" scenario as soon as priorities in bug fixing and general game performance have been addressed. That's the plan and we'll get there as soon as we can. I'm not sure what else we can do at this point. I'm not here stonewalling you, I'm saying that I hear you and we've added something to our development plan to address your concerns, it just can't be at the top of the list yet.

If you want to keep griping or venting, feel free, but at this point I'm not sure there's anything else I can really add to the discussion.

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 borner)

Post #: 151

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 5:03:06 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: David The Great

It saddens me to see what became of EiA, a few years ago i posted a thread with the question if the project was hijacked bij some EiH fanatics, it seems it has been. This has kept me from buying the already not so cheap, game.
Would it not have been wiser to stick to the original and made the EIH stuff optional insted of the other way arround ?
If someone buys this game under the assumption that he buys a pc version of the boardgame, i can understand that he would feel cheated.

Matrix mis-estimated the target demographic for the game. Since there was a large majority of EiH people on the forums, Matrix naturally made the assumption that the buyers of the game would lean heavily in the EiH direction as well.

This assumption proved flawed, because a significant majority of the people who wound up buying the released version were, in fact, EiA fans. For example, I had never heard of EiH until after I bought the game.

But, there's another piece to this puzzle that the EiA-only fans seem not willing to accept: EiA CANNOT be done as both a PBEM game and full EiA. True EiA would require hundreds of emails going back and forth every game month. The diplomacy phase alone would require no less than 63 independent steps (9 steps times 7 players). And I'm being generous with some of those and only counting 4.1 through 4.9 as separate, when several of the sub-steps might also require independent steps. The naval phase would require that at each change of areas by an at-war fleet, all enemy fleets in range would have to report whether they wanted to intercept or not. Worse than that, even fleets at peace could wind up being intercepted if traveling with enemy corps on board.

Could this be done with "standing orders"? Sure, but then it's NOT EiA. It's a simplified EiA. When I played GB, I made decisions based on which enemy fleets were moving at the time, and what my assessment of the future value of stopping them or letting them go is FOR THAT FLEET. It changed pretty much any time ANY fleet moved, not just the one that was moving now.

Some simplification MUST be done, or the game would have been unplayable. EiA simply could not be done, from a very practical perspective. Whatever was to come out of Matrix was bound to be some kind of hybrid EiA. Matrix simply chose EiH's model, since (according to the many voices at the time -- see the old forum threads) those players thought their model would be the easiest to implement and play.

To Matrix, I imagine, it seemed logical at the time to go with EiH. There was a very clear majority of people speaking out about the virtues of EiH. Could those voices have been merely "squeaky wheels"? Perhaps. But they WERE the voices speaking.

Now, I want to point out that the pro-EiA crowd DID post back then. But, they were heavily outnumbered (or, at least, out-posted, anyhow). What would I do?

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 10/3/2008 5:04:25 PM >

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to David The Great)

Post #: 152

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 5:29:32 PM

Tanan Fujiwara

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

OK Mr. Rutins, I'll try to be as constructive and honest as I can get on this one...

First, to the people that just say to stop the whining and complaining and to stop coming to this forum I'll just say that it is quite rude to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do... I was brought up to respect other thoughts and opinions, even if I don't agree with them, so that's all I have to say about that...

Second, Matrix does deserve a lot of recognition, for starters they've got an open forum were peoples thoughts can be openly expresed without fear of being banded... and you usually get a quick response from them too (even when our thoughts aren't nice), that's one of the main reasons I keep coming back to the this forum, to express my opinion, which is what a forum is all about really (if someone doesn't understand that they have an attitude problem)... Also, it is the only gaming company that still works on strategy games and boardgame adaptations, nowdays this is really hard to find... that is why I feel strongly dissapointed when things like this happen to a greatgame with amazing possibilities!!!

Third, it is true that I have exaggerated my response Mr. Rutins, but I think that you will agree with me that the advertisement of this game on its web we could call it a bit vague... and that if a product raises questions it isn't reaching the public in the best of ways. About this bullet:

"Includes some enhanced rules and play options added over the years by Empires in Arms players"

It doesn't say "...from Empires in Harms players", in fact it is not mentioned anywhere that the game has many rules and settings from EiH. So any experienced player would be let to believe that a part from having all of the optional rules from the basic rulebook, it would have the official rules and options published by AH or the Australian Design Group in the General magazine or other official addendums, but nothing from EiH, which is not part of EiA but a compleate game onto itself based on EiA.

Third, I have nothing agaisn't EiH (just think it swamps the game a bit), actually I have played it once and I play EiA with official enhancements and other house rules (the 1796 campaign is my favourite and I really like the "official" EiA advanced naval rules), so implementing EiH in a computer game seems more than reasonable. My complaint here is that this game is neither EiH nor EiA, but a bizarre mix in between that doesn't give real credit to any of them.

Finally, this game was sold as a quality product (not only because of the price...) and it certaintly isn't... it was sold as having an AI and you will have to agree with me on this one Mr. Rutins that its still a joke... it was advertised in the forums as the definite pbem tool and it hasn't lived to its expectations... it was sold to the public (so I would believe that that means a final prduct) and we got something that came quite close to a beta product... so yes, I whine and whimper, because I haven't lost faith compleately in this game or other Matrix Games products. It is sad really, because I had high hopes on Matrix, but the truth is that this is not the only forum in matrix where people complain about their games, specifically AI and faithfull adaptations...

My best

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 153

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 6:32:43 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

But, there's another piece to this puzzle that the EiA-only fans seem not willing to accept: EiA CANNOT be done as both a PBEM game and full EiA. True EiA would require hundreds of emails going back and forth every game month. The diplomacy phase alone would require no less than 63 independent steps (9 steps times 7 players). And I'm being generous with some of those and only counting 4.1 through 4.9 as separate, when several of the sub-steps might also require independent steps. The naval phase would require that at each change of areas by an at-war fleet, all enemy fleets in range would have to report whether they wanted to intercept or not. Worse than that, even fleets at peace could wind up being intercepted if traveling with enemy corps on board.

This is wrong for 1 simple reason, you are overlooking what Matrix COULD have done: IP play.

Now, for all those Matrix people who don't know what IP play means, it stands for Internet Play, I know, I know, that wang fangle crazy futuristic technologies, but the internet is a great place and maybe one day Matrix will discover it.

As far as Tanan goes, I simply couldn't have said it better or agree anymore than I already do!

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 154

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 9:58:56 PM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanan Fujiwara
Third, it is true that I have exaggerated my response Mr. Rutins, but I think that you will agree with me that the advertisement of this game on its web we could call it a bit vague... and that if a product raises questions it isn't reaching the public in the best of ways. About this bullet:

"Includes some enhanced rules and play options added over the years by Empires in Arms players"

It doesn't say "...from Empires in Harms players", in fact it is not mentioned anywhere that the game has many rules and settings from EiH. So any experienced player would be let to believe that a part from having all of the optional rules from the basic�rulebook, it would have the official rules and options published by�AH or the Australian Design Group in the General�magazine or other official addendums, but nothing from EiH, which is not part of EiA but a compleate game onto itself based on EiA.

Ok, thanks for the specific feedback on this point. I've just changed it on our games page and store page to read:

"Includes many enhanced rules and play options added over the years by "Empires in Harms" players"

Hopefully that will be more clear. I also moved that up to #2 on the features list so that it would be more obvious.

quote:

Finally, this game was sold as a quality product (not only because of the price...) and it certaintly isn't... it was sold as having an AI and you will have to agree with me on this one Mr. Rutins that its still a joke... it was advertised in the forums as the definite pbem tool and it hasn't lived to its expectations... it was sold to the public (so I would believe that that means a final prduct) and we got something that came quite close to a beta product... so yes, I whine and whimper, because I haven't lost faith compleately in this game or other Matrix Games products. It is sad really, because I had high hopes on Matrix, but the truth is that this is not the only forum in matrix where people complain about their games, specifically AI and faithfull adaptations...

I am very disappointed in the number of bugs and other issues that came up after release. This whole series of events was discussed previously in other threads and I can only say that we screwed up. We have not had another release in the last five years that had this many issues. What we can do at this point, which we are doing, is to keep development going until things are sorted up. I think at the v1.04.05 level, the game is working a lot better in most respects than it did at release and Marshall is doing a good job following up on issues and fixing them, with the help of Delatbabel as test coordinator. Our plan is to continue to work on EIA and part of that plan is to implement a "Classic EIA" scenario as soon as we can, for those that were upset about the inclusion of EIH.

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 Tanan Fujiwara)

Post #: 155

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 10:36:25 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

But, there's another piece to this puzzle that the EiA-only fans seem not willing to accept: EiA CANNOT be done as both a PBEM game and full EiA. True EiA would require hundreds of emails going back and forth every game month. The diplomacy phase alone would require no less than 63 independent steps (9 steps times 7 players). And I'm being generous with some of those and only counting 4.1 through 4.9 as separate, when several of the sub-steps might also require independent steps. The naval phase would require that at each change of areas by an at-war fleet, all enemy fleets in range would have to report whether they wanted to intercept or not. Worse than that, even fleets at peace could wind up being intercepted if traveling with enemy corps on board.

This is wrong for 1 simple reason, you are overlooking what Matrix COULD have done: IP play.

I've highlighted in red the part you obviously missed. I'll stand by my statement as written.

It can be argued whether PBEM was the right choice, but they DID make it, and with overwhelming support by the expected user community (at the time).

I wasn't on the forums then, but my understanding is that Matrix was looking at another 2 years of development to put out full TCP/IP play. The users "loudly" requested (demanded?) that Matrix release the PBEM version first. I did go back and read some of these comments, and I have to say I can't fault Matrix for going the path they chose. They went with what their customers were asking for. Unfortunately, they found that they had a skewed customer base.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 156

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 10:41:38 PM

timewalker03

Posts: 171
Joined: 6/9/2003
From: Omaha, NE
Status: offline

Erik I have a question for you. Why do you keep calling it as adding a classic scenario? Does that mean it will be an 1805 Classic campaign, or just an implamentation of the classic rules? Why not just add the classic rules as rule options and leave it at that. The things that would change and here are a few examples are the map would change some as it has added countries now. The naval rules would change quite a bit and may be the most dramatic change there is. Also I think a robust enhancement to the AI is needed before anything else. Most fixes have been to fix PBEM. Now is the time to give the AI a major boost and let the PBEM people wait a bit. Just my opinion on that.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 157

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/3/2008 10:52:48 PM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: timewalker03
Erik I have a question for you. Why do you keep calling it as adding a classic scenario? Does that mean it will be an 1805 Classic campaign, or just an implamentation of the classic rules? Why not just add the classic rules as rule options and leave it at that. The things that would change and here are a few examples are the map would change some as it has added countries now. The naval rules would change quite a bit and may be the most dramatic change there is.

My understanding from discussions with Marshall is that the quickest and safest way to implement "Classic EIA" is as a separate scenario once we have completed the work required for the scenario editing tools. I'm not sure yet just how far we will be able to go in the first step, but it is pretty high up on our list of goals.

quote:

Also I think a robust enhancement to the AI is needed before anything else. Most fixes have been to fix PBEM. Now is the time to give the AI a major boost and let the PBEM people wait a bit. Just my opinion on that.

I agree. In fact, I think the v1.04.05 build does include some AI enhancements, have you tried that in solo play yet? The AI is one of our top three priorities and often in the #1 spot.

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 timewalker03)

Post #: 158

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 12:15:12 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanan Fujiwara
Third, it is true that I have exaggerated my response Mr. Rutins, but I think that you will agree with me that the advertisement of this game on its web we could call it a bit vague... and that if a product raises questions it isn't reaching the public in the best of ways. About this bullet:

"Includes some enhanced rules and play options added over the years by Empires in Arms players"

It doesn't say "...from Empires in Harms players", in fact it is not mentioned anywhere that the game has many rules and settings from EiH. So any experienced player would be let to believe that a part from having all of the optional rules from the basic�rulebook, it would have the official rules and options published by�AH or the Australian Design Group in the General�magazine or other official addendums, but nothing from EiH, which is not part of EiA but a compleate game onto itself based on EiA.

Ok, thanks for the specific feedback on this point. I've just changed it on our games page and store page to read:

"Includes many enhanced rules and play options added over the years by "Empires in Harms" players"

Hopefully that will be more clear. I also moved that up to #2 on the features list so that it would be more obvious.

quote:

Finally, this game was sold as a quality product (not only because of the price...) and it certaintly isn't... it was sold as having an AI and you will have to agree with me on this one Mr. Rutins that its still a joke... it was advertised in the forums as the definite pbem tool and it hasn't lived to its expectations... it was sold to the public (so I would believe that that means a final prduct) and we got something that came quite close to a beta product... so yes, I whine and whimper, because I haven't lost faith compleately in this game or other Matrix Games products. It is sad really, because I had high hopes on Matrix, but the truth is that this is not the only forum in matrix where people complain about their games, specifically AI and faithfull adaptations...

I am very disappointed in the number of bugs and other issues that came up after release. This whole series of events was discussed previously in other threads and I can only say that we screwed up. We have not had another release in the last five years that had this many issues. What we can do at this point, which we are doing, is to keep development going until things are sorted up. I think at the v1.04.05 level, the game is working a lot better in most respects than it did at release and Marshall is doing a good job following up on issues and fixing them, with the help of Delatbabel as test coordinator. Our plan is to continue to work on EIA and part of that plan is to implement a "Classic EIA" scenario as soon as we can, for those that were upset about the inclusion of EIH.

Regards,

- Erik

Thank you Erik for a great post! This is pretty much all I think we wanted to hear:
1. Matrix apologize without BUTs
2. Fix the game page so that it is more accurate for newcomers (this actually helps you more than us, since it doesn't help us at all)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 159

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 12:16:55 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I've highlighted in red the part you obviously missed. I'll stand by my statement as written.

It can be argued whether PBEM was the right choice, but they DID make it, and with overwhelming support by the expected user community (at the time).

I wasn't on the forums then, but my understanding is that Matrix was looking at another 2 years of development to put out full TCP/IP play. The users "loudly" requested (demanded?) that Matrix release the PBEM version first. I did go back and read some of these comments, and I have to say I can't fault Matrix for going the path they chose. They went with what their customers were asking for. Unfortunately, they found that they had a skewed customer base.

You were making an argument that it was not possible for Matrix to do "classic EiA" because of PBEM. My point is that they didn't have to do PBEM, they could have just done TCP/IP instead, or a hybrid (the best and most obvious choice really).

Jimmer, I read your whole post. My point was this: Matrix wasn't stuck doing PBEM, they could have done anything they wanted, so COULD THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED EMPIRES IN ARMS DOWN TO A TEE????

The answer: YES THEY COULD HAVE. Did they choose not to? YES THEY DID.

EDIT: I guess what a lot of people here who think I complain/whine too much don't understand is that I was here back then and I was screaming my lungs out for EiA and TCP/IP, both of which got ignored.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 10/4/2008 12:19:49 AM >

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 160

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 1:04:40 AM

Erik Rutins

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

FYI, in this case TCP/IP would have added much more time to the development than PBEM. It's such a major time investment and we've found its usage to be fairly low in other releases, that I doubt it will be feasible to implement it. I'd much rather improve the PBEM system as much as we can at this point.

_____________________________

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 NeverMan)

Post #: 161

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 1:32:28 AM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Thank you Erik for a great post! This is pretty much all I think we wanted to hear:
1. Matrix apologize without BUTs
2. Fix the game page so that it is more accurate for newcomers (this actually helps you more than us, since it doesn't help us at all)

Glad to hear it. I'm pretty sure I had said all that before regarding the bugs and issues, but I guess not in the right way.

I hadn't heard such specific feedback on the game/store page description before, so once I knew what was specifically the problem with the posted feature point, it was easy to fix. I hope it helps new customers and avoids further confusion.

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 NeverMan)

Post #: 162

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 2:39:33 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
EDIT: I guess what a lot of people here who think I complain/whine too much don't understand is that I was here back then and I was screaming my lungs out for EiA and TCP/IP, both of which got ignored.

Well, while I would prefer TCP/IP play over PBEM, I'm glad you lost the argument. For, then, we would have nothing EiA-ish for at least another year (and I might never accidentally run into it then ...).

However, you are mistaken (or, using selective memory) to say that you were ignored. Your choice was defeated, primarly because there were far more people on the other side. I've seen the poll. I forget the numbers, but your position was simply outvoted.

Were they wrong? Perhaps. There seems to have been a lot of the other side who have disappeared from the debate. Perhaps they simply gave up on the game. Or, it's possible they don't want to be reminded that this was their idea. I don't know.

But, what we have now is what we have. There's no point in asking for TCP/IP as the next project. It would kill the game to take that much of Marshall's time away from the game.

I don't care if you "whine" or whatever. I do it myself. But, my preference would be that we debate constructively instead of destructively. It does absolute no good to say "I told you so"; they cannot change the general path they are on. Let's get the current game cleaned up close to "completely", and THEN push forward on other major improvements.

By the way, I (probably like you) would like to see full, original EIA as a TCP/IP-enabled package. I would pay extra for a server service to house the data (which is the only way the game could be secured properly). Etc. So, my preference is to ignore the idea of an EIA SCENARIO (don't bother wasting resources on it), and go straight to full EIA IP play instead (say, version 2). However, before we can do that, Matrix must turn a profit on the game. And that means getting this game, as Mary Poppins would say "spit-spot!"

I "think" Erik and Matrix are right on target as to how to get there. I don't know all of their plans, of course, but they seem pretty good right now. Hasbro would have written off the whole project if it didn't make boodles of money in the first three months. Firaxis would have cut it off at the knees after 6. Matrix is the only company I've seen willing to stick with a good idea like this, no matter how much it hurts.

The seed is here. The game has great promise: I've now played 4 games in a row (as France) through the first year, and I've not been able to get into London until at least July every time. That is a HUGE improvement.

I think they are on the right path NOW, using what they have. They can't go back in time and change things. So, to get to IP play, they have two options:

1) Blow up the current game and start over. This would be financially disastrous for them, and they most likely wouldn't survive. So, that option is out.

2) Mold what they have now into and acorn that can grow into an oak tree.

(I may have created a false dichotomy here, but, simplified, this is pretty close.)

I think that second option is the only one that will work. They need our help to do it, though. I'm going to stand behind them until the project either succeeds or fails. For, there really is no other path to choose.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 163

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 2:44:03 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I hadn't heard such specific feedback on the game/store page description before, so once I knew what was specifically the problem with the posted feature point, it was easy to fix. I hope it helps new customers and avoids further confusion.

Now that you mention it ...

There's one entry on the store page that says "officially licensed adaptation of" ....

I don't know how you word it, but it would be good to make it more plain that this is an adaptation. Moving that other entry up certainly will help.

Now, understand that this isn't going to sell any copies. But, those who DO buy will more fully understand what they are getting. I realize the wording now is "boilerplate" stuff, but NeverMan HAS a valid argument (about it not being EIA). I don't know how you word it without cutting sales, but it's something to think about.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 164

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 4:13:54 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

yes, it does seem like a bait and switch in a way. However, for now, it is what it is. I think we can all agree on the general facts of what happened, what fell short, and where things are. So, what now?

Personally, I hope that bug removal gets 100% of whatever resources are being put into this project. Then, worry about AI and such. My vote would be to look for ways for phases to be combined to speed up PBEM play next. This will never be EiA as many of us know it. It can be a close cousin once things are fixed. I agree with the comments that TCP/IP play is not practical, and really would be used by a small portion of players. In all 4 of my games, there are players from more than one nation or time zone.

I need some asprin. This switch to a more positive entry has given me a headache!

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 165

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 4:29:09 AM

NeverMan

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

Jimmer:

You're right, I was just outvoted, the ***** masses have a way of doing that.

It's sad for me to think TCP/IP is a waste of time, as I don't think it is. I do think that because of lack of IP play that this game will never really be polished and finished, IMO, it will always be "dated", and therefore feel like an 8-bit NES 2D game (or worse, C64 game) rather than the extraordinary strategy game that it is.

I do think secure non-server IP games are possible, what is wrong with host-set encryption (fips-197, etc)? Or other forms of encryption?

Anyways, it seems as though I am wasting my breath on IP play...........again!! (Wonder how the first time turned out, LOL!)

Matrix has to put time into the AI for two reasons:
1. There is a large market for AI
2. A lot of the bugs are PBEM games only

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 166

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 4:58:41 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner
I need some asprin. This switch to a more positive entry has given me a headache!

Bwuahahahaha!

R
O
F
L
O
L

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 167

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 5:01:00 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I do think secure non-server IP games are possible, what is wrong with host-set encryption (fips-197, etc)? Or other forms of encryption?

Oh, it's not the encryption I was thinking of. It's the ability to stop or start a turn over and over again. With a server, that couldn't happen, because the server would hold all of the tokens. You couldn't see the results of combat until you had declared them to the server. Only then would it (for example) reveal chits.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear, was it.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 168

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 6:44:37 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I do think secure non-server IP games are possible, what is wrong with host-set encryption (fips-197, etc)? Or other forms of encryption?

Oh, it's not the encryption I was thinking of. It's the ability to stop or start a turn over and over again. With a server, that couldn't happen, because the server would hold all of the tokens. You couldn't see the results of combat until you had declared them to the server. Only then would it (for example) reveal chits.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear, was it.

I see what you were saying now, although two things:

1. This "cheat" is totally doable at the moment in PBEM (so why should TCP/IP be any different).
2. I'm sure this could be worked around locally.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 169

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 7:51:40 PM

David The Great

Posts: 98
Joined: 10/3/2008
Status: offline

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 170

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/4/2008 11:02:46 PM

DCWhitworth

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: David The Great

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

I don't understand this attitude expressed by so many people. Did *anyone* play the original EiA *exactly* as it was intended ? I bet most groups had house rules. What is so sacrasanct about the original EiA, it was in my opinion a game with many flaws, a great game, but not without issues.

Now I can understand people saying EiANW is not ideal in one way or another, but not that therefore EiA is the ideal we should be aspiring to.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to David The Great)

Post #: 171

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/5/2008 2:56:25 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Many of us have been so busy trying to exterminate bugs, that it's hard to give this version a fair look. For one, I think this version can be fine, but I think Martix needs to make at least some mention that the game is "based on" Eia, not that it is Eia.

Get rid of the bugs, and I think this could be a quality product.

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 172

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/5/2008 2:58:02 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: David The Great

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

I don't understand this attitude expressed by so many people. Did *anyone* play the original EiA *exactly* as it was intended ? I bet most groups had house rules. What is so sacrasanct about the original EiA, it was in my opinion a game with many flaws, a great game, but not without issues.

Now I can understand people saying EiANW is not ideal in one way or another, but not that therefore EiA is the ideal we should be aspiring to.

BUT you could always play the original EiA if you wanted to, with EiANW that is not even an option.

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 173

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/5/2008 6:09:28 PM

David The Great

Posts: 98
Joined: 10/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: David The Great

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

I don't understand this attitude expressed by so many people. Did *anyone* play the original EiA *exactly* as it was intended ? I bet most groups had house rules. What is so sacrasanct about the original EiA, it was in my opinion a game with many flaws, a great game, but not without issues.

Now I can understand people saying EiANW is not ideal in one way or another, but not that therefore EiA is the ideal we should be aspiring to.

I played the original EiA several times, We also played it with house rules, some of wich were sometimes complicated, some of them never got further then 1 game, others were stayers.
The EiHarm game was well known to our player group, you could not mis it if you made a internet search on the net. We sometimes tried a few of its contetns, for example the extra leaders, but never played it as it was intended, as it was a bridge to far for most of our player group.
So the answer to you're question is yes, we played the original several times in our player group, i'm sorry for you that you did not have the same game experience.

< Message edited by David The Great -- 10/5/2008 7:58:12 PM >

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 174

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/6/2008 5:31:20 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

We played "stock" EiA. For one month of the first game we played.

At that point, Spain lost a battle in Morocco's capital, and we realized the retreat rules were not properly written. If read loosely, they created the unrealistic scenario that Spain could retreat East, "towards" home (via Constantinope).

At this point, we created our first (of MANY) "house rules": A unit could retreat in a direction only if it was�truly "towards" his nation. We defined this as that a depot placement location could possibly exist within the maximum range +3 of the army that was retreating. In other words, if it were theoretically possible with the current map situation to build a depot (in the Morocco situation) within 7 spaces east (3 movement and 3 range from depot, plus one more for the actual retreat movement), then the army could retreat that direction.

However, unlike many of the games I've heard about, we ONLY created house rules to cover situations where we thought the real rules fell short, either of realism (at an abstract level) or of playability. We always played with almost all of the optional rules, too. That's how we found out they seemed to have been "add-ons", because several of them had logic or playability problems in them.

So, did we ever play true EiA? No, not for more than January, 1805, in our first game. And, neither did anybody else, since the rules of "true EiA" were logically contradictory in several places. EVERYBODY played with at least some house rules, if only at to how to resolve rules contradictions or to determine "how should this rule be interpretted?".

NOTE: We played before the first errata were ever printed. Several of the errata items that came out resolved some of our issues with the rules. Since some of you guys are relative youngsters, you may be more familiar with the "rules + errata", which eventually because playable. If you played after about 1986 or so, and had access to The General, it is possible you played with just the rules as written, which could be called "pure EiA".

< Message edited by Jimmer -- 10/6/2008 5:33:45 PM >

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to David The Great)

Post #: 175

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/6/2008 6:46:11 PM

NeverMan

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

I played in the late 80s early 90s and had access to the errata. We played Empires in Arms and we also played EiA with house rules sometimes, even ones from EiH.

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 10/7/2008 2:12:59 AM >

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 176

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/8/2008 4:15:24 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

I think every group had house rules. The discussion for who had which ones, and what is better I think could be a great thread of it's own. It is all for not until Marshall can get out the industrial size can of bug spray tough.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 177

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/8/2008 12:42:18 PM

pzgndr

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

quote:

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

Speaking of pointless and silly, what exactly is the point of rehashing the same old arguments EVERY SINGLE DAY?? OK, EiANW should have been made as EiA. Fine. That would have been nice. But it wasn't. So. Move on already.

Matrix and Marshall have acknowledged over and over again that things will be fixed. We cannot expect more at this point. Does anyone think by endlessly complaining that somehow a miracle will occur and the game will be instantaneously fixed?

Every day the same old BS from a few vocal whiners. Every damn day. Grow up already. Move on.

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 178

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/8/2008 12:57:43 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

Speaking of pointless and silly, what exactly is the point of rehashing the same old arguments EVERY SINGLE DAY?? OK, EiANW should have been made as EiA. Fine. That would have been nice. But it wasn't. So. Move on already.

Matrix and Marshall have acknowledged over and over again that things will be fixed. We cannot expect more at this point. Does anyone think by endlessly complaining that somehow a miracle will occur and the game will be instantaneously fixed?

Every day the same old BS from a few vocal whiners. Every damn day. Grow up already. Move on.

Wow, what a constructive and mature post. I see you don't practice what you preach, what a hypocrite!

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 179

RE: Is This Game Playable Yet? - 10/8/2008 4:51:10 PM

iamspamus

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

Nice diversion, but you don't address his issue. What is the point of just repeating that it's not EiA? We get it. You're not happy with EiANW. Got it...next.

I am happy to have it on computer. I like the direction it's going. It still needs some work. Keep up the good work guys.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

Speaking of pointless and silly, what exactly is the point of rehashing the same old arguments EVERY SINGLE DAY?? OK, EiANW should have been made as EiA. Fine. That would have been nice. But it wasn't. So. Move on already.

Matrix and Marshall have acknowledged over and over again that things will be fixed. We cannot expect more at this point. Does anyone think by endlessly complaining that somehow a miracle will occur and the game will be instantaneously fixed?

Every day the same old BS from a few vocal whiners. Every damn day. Grow up already. Move on.

Wow, what a constructive and mature post. I see you don't practice what you preach, what a hypocrite!