Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

December Update!

 
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 >> December Update! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
December Update! - 12/3/2002 1:10:18 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Hope all had a great holiday! I just got back from a vacation and apologize for the late December update (Thank you Le Tondu for the reminder!)

Well we're closer. We actually have an engine running and I'm doing some basic programmer play testing at this point to make sure it is stable. Two elements we need to finish are the standard EIA combat (Our default combat is a little more detailed and allows some tactical control of the field. We designed this before we cut our deal to do EIA). Our objective is to allow you to select which combat form to use Standard EIA or Enhanced EIA.

We also are modifying the surrender process. Our original surrender process is a lot more simple than standard EIA surrender rules but as a side-effect are probably not as interesting as the standard EIA surrender rules. As any EIA player would know, the surrender rules in EIA are pretty complicated (At least for a programmer to simulate i.e. conditional or unconditional, conditions that limit terms, etc.).

I do have a question for all of you veteran EIA players ...
How would you like surrender to be on a computer version of the game? What is your vision of the best way to do this?

We're hoping for some user play testing toward the end of the year ... (fingers crossed).

Soon, with a little luck and sweat, the "Little Corsican" will running across your monitors!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games


Post #: 1
- 12/3/2002 1:55:23 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Well first of all, I would certainly throw my hat in the ring to help test this. I have little programming skills but have played EiA (in a variety of formats) for more than a decade.

To answer your question, at the 30,000 foot level I think the surrender process should be as close as possible to the board game.

The ability to force peace as well (denial of all manpower in an economic phase).

Referencing an example, Europa Universalis II does a decent job of simulating the peace process. You can demand or offer tribute. You can demand provinces. You can demand access.

These are all in the EiA rules and are highly desired. It is by virtue of the peace process that you can gain tremendous leverage. Indeed it is one of the most important pieces of the game.

I would guess that you can readily "enforce" peace (i.e., no DOW allowed for X months -- something else that EUII has). You should be therefore able to enforce a longer peace for one over the other (if someone chooses the extended peace).

Denial of British trade would be like a forced embargo (again, on EUII), and reparations (even a share of British trade) should be available.

With time I could be more comprehensive, but this is a start.

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 2
Options list - 12/3/2002 6:14:30 AM   
martinmb

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/3/2002
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		Marshall,

In EiA there is a way to enforce an unconditional peace. Capture of every prov. capitol and the national capitol. May I suggest that if say France wants Prussia to surrender, and Prussia is computer controlled. That France is allowed to ask Prussia - "Does Prussia wish to surrender?" or have the AI ask the player "Will you accept a Conditional surrender?” I know that if Prussia sue's for peace and France offers Conditional terms than Prussia must accept the peace, but Prussia would not be forced to accept an Unconditional peace, unless all of the capitols are captured. I am basically trying to state that I think that if the AI can be programmed to do the flow chart thing that this might be the way to go. I know nothing of programming, until 2 1/2 years ago I couldn't even find the “on” button.
As for the terms of surrender, depending on what is available to the victor, there should then appear in a separate window. The victor chooses 3 options then the AI will or will not choose it's cancellation term. Depending on if the peace is conditional or unconditional.
In regard to the combat issues before you maybe allowing the player the option of which system to use would be best. I like the idea of some control on the battlefield, but I am concerned about the amount of time this may add in requiring to complete a full campaign game, with other players. Maybe this is an optional thing as well. However, if I were to be playing the game alone this would be a must in my books.
My experience in the many games that I have played leads me to believe that most players do want a certain amount of options before them. For example the crossing arrow between Lille and Dover or what about the drop in Napoleon’s abilities, both are listed as an option to the players. Whether or not you play with or without these or other options is up to you as the player(s) in that, game, decide. What the style and flavour of the game will be like is partially based on the options you choose to use or not use as the case may be. I am trying to overlook issues of style and flavour and deal with the real issues at hand.
What questions have the designers asked us and how can we best answer their questions without trying to turn the options list into an absolute must be played list, or trying to impose our personal style onto the game.
This does bring up a question or two. If I were playing the game by myself, would I be forced to play France or Great Britain? Or may I choose which nation I want to play. The second question I have is how have you approached the question of Diplomacy with AI controlled major nations? Is there going to be diplomacy with AI controlled major nations?

I could go on but then I would be stealing some else's time.
Thank you.

M

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 3
Good ideas - 12/3/2002 8:00:24 AM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		To Martin's questions:

Great questions.

First of all, when playing by yourself, you can be any nation you want ... NO LIMITATIONS!

Diplomacy will be handled much the same as Empires in Harm. In fact Michael Treasure is on our team and is helping in this matter. If you are not familiar with Empires in Harm, there are some diplomatic moves that you can attempt on a minor nation that would move that minor nation closer to an alliance with your nation so that when this country is invaded by another major power, it becomes a Free State of the influencing power. Something similar to this has also been instituted for the major powers that are computer controlled.

Maybe a small summary of the AI system might help you figure how the AI will pick its moves and strategies:

We have already written an AI generator for the game and this generator is simply a high level strategy developer. I can go in this program and setup strategies (As many as I want). Each strategy has a preferred building strategy, money spending, preferred prey (Weakest major, closest minor, etc), and preferred method to attain goal (diplomacy, pick strong major ally, etc.). When the game is started then one of these available strategies will be picked for each major that is computer controlled. Keep in mind that the game will not pick the "Conquer Russia Today" strategy for Spain. There is a little more thought put into it. We like this approach because we can modify the AI without touching the program ... and that is a good thing for you and I!!!! You won't get the funny language of a tricky diplomatic message that you might get from your buddy (i.e. France saying to Austria "Don't worry, we have no interest towards Vienna") who plays EIA with you because hey we haven't gotten that far yet and hey, your buddy is human but the computer will not be AS tricky ... in version 1.00 that is! Remember that this is only a high level strategy so when the computer's capital falls into danger then the strategy turns to "Protect the Homeland"

Some of these strategies won't be the best. For example, there may be a strategy where France tries confront GBR's navy and invade GBR early in the game. Certainly risky as I think you would agree and maybe not the smartest thing to do but if Napoelon could have gotten his little boats across the channel, he would have done it! We're also allowing the computer to abandon a strategy when it fails (When Napoleons fleet gets decimated by Nelson) so that the computer can remain a challenge to the humans.

I hope I'm not rambling too much. Suffice to say, the computer will use a blend of war/diplomacy to attain its goals. We're not dictating how to reach the goal ... only the goal itself.

Anyway, sorry for the long message but hope it helps!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 4
- 12/3/2002 8:30:25 AM   
jnier


Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline 		Glad to hear that lots of effort is being put into a stategic level AI. So often, AI is competant at handling the little picture well (making shrewd tactical choices), but is clueless when it comes to grand stategy. Emphasizing smart [I]strategic[/I] decisions for the AI is the right priority for EIA, and I hope this emphasis continues as development progresses.

Sound like you're making great progress!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 5
AI - 12/3/2002 9:17:25 AM   
ZONER

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Rochester NY
Status: offline 		I don't envy the task of programming an AI for this game. The greatest attribute of this game is country interaction. I have played this game for many years (10+) and have found it to be most enjoyable with 6 or more players. This is due to the wheeling and dealing between countries. However you do it I would suggest some sort of scale to inform you of how cooperative another nation will be towards you. Also how will you handle combined movement an integral part of the game especially between Prussia and Austria against France? Will you be able to handle coordinated troop movements making suggestions on where a computer ally moves his corps, transport my troops and will you supply my troops with your depots. Also a lot of money gets transported through a mutual ally because you are not an ally of a nation you are paying off so they do not declare war on you. Many of the moves a country will make are based on knowing if another country (not necessarily your ally) will be there for you. Many aspects of the game are decided between players verbally (I will not attack country x if you don't attack country y). Many alliances are not formal and many peace agreements are settled through informal peace.
The rules themselves are a daunting task as they can be hard to follow especially the cooperation rules. There are several that can be interpreted many different ways. I also suggest using the optional rules for the amount of corps a leader can command, as an unlimited amount is a great game unbalance. Well I've rambled on long enough. If I have a point to make it is try to enable as much interaction between the computer opponents and a human player as possible because the strength of the game lies in this interaction not in the mechanics. Good luck.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 6
Two more questions - 12/3/2002 9:56:50 PM   
martinmb

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/3/2002
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		Marshall,

I believe I understand what it is that you are trying to accomplish with the AI. I like the approach. Not only does the AI have a choice of “grand strategies” but also has the ability to change these strategies should the first one fail and become impossible to achieve. It appears that you might be past the stage of determining specific strategies for specific nations. However, the magazine called “The General” – produced by AH—contained 3 insightful articles covering this very topic. They may not be what you require or need but they are an excellent resource or reference material. The 3 articles were contained is issues; vol. 23 # 4, vol. 27 # 2 + # 4, I personally have the first and last of these articles. I am prepared to share these articles with anyone should you have the middle article (vol. 27 # 2), I have never read that one.
In regards to your question as to if I was familiar with EiH the answer is no I am not. The idea of having the political arena changed by your own actions sounds very intriguing and exciting. The very idea of implementing Einstein’s theory of “Cause and Affect” into a political/war game is a dramatic step, but one that I feel is long overdue. The earlier comments I made towards EiH have raised another question. Most rulebooks, (I come from an age that existed prior to computers), were set up in such a way that even the first time player would be able to understand the basic mechanics of the game. They may not have any idea about tactics or strategy but they could learn that over time.

“Are you going to include a tutorial, a basic how to, built into the game?”

This in my opinion would allow even the first time wargamer to feel appreciated and that this company’s programmers were doing their best to address even the simplest of questions without the questioner feeling stupid.
My last question for today will be; “Included in any patches or updated improved :D versions that you may release will you be adding into the AI program additional Grand Strategies and/or tactics?”

Yours Truly,

M :cool:

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 7
I can't wait! - 12/6/2002 9:49:00 AM   
EarlPembroke

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline 		Oh, I can't wait for this game!!

I also have EU2 and have played it more hours than I should recount here. I also have EiA and have played it a couple of times (but each time was many, many hours spread over months) as solitaire.

I think the EU2 model for peace could be modified some to fit this well. In fact, I was on their forum early and there were discussions on games such as EiA as examples of how it should be done. And their forum is where I heard about the development of this game.

I'm glad to hear about the grand strategies, too. And the more those type of files can be editable, the more scenarios players can contribute (such as some of the mods that came out in the General, like the French Revolution or the Great Northern War), the more deeply the players become involved (e.g. EU2). Not the game engine, but including the ability to add generals, modify province values and owners, etc. etc. etc. will win fans.

And I'm glad you can play any nation! One of the EiA games I played was the Malmo scenario (as Sweden) - of course I modified their allowable force pool a bit and added a couple leaders so they were more competitive. :)

Finally, I have some of the old EiA-related General articles, and would be more than happy (delighted is more like it) to help with any testing.

P.S. Marshall, both my sisters live in Dallas.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 8
Re: I can't wait! - 12/6/2002 11:54:27 PM   
oleb

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 10/18/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by EarlPembroke
[B]
I think the EU2 model for peace could be modified some to fit this well. In fact, I was on their forum early and there were discussions on games such as EiA as examples of how it should be done. And their forum is where I heard about the development of this game.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Whats the point in using a worse peace model than the one that original EiA had? I hope you will use a model thats as close to EiH as possible, perhaps with some more options added, not that any come to mind right now.

_____________________________

Ktarn

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 9
- 12/7/2002 5:43:33 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Thank you again for the input. I can get a great understanding of what needs to be done by just listening ... sometimes difficult for me :)


Ktarn:

The point, to be honest with you, for using "worse" surrender rules than EIA was the fact that it was easier to program and at the time, we hadn't made the deal to do EIA but now that has changed and so are our surrender rules ... to be more EIAish. Hope that helps.

EarlPembroke:

One thing we haven't decided is how much change should we allow such as scenario editing and so forth but I believe like you that the more mods that can be made by the players, the more interesting the whole game will be. You're right, it's a fine line to make sure that the mods are made within limits so that the engine does not krash ... sorry but as a programmer I hate the word CRASH!

Glad to hear you got family down here. Great place to live from October to April.

Martinmb:

Sorry I didn't answer your question but the answer is "Yes, it will if time permits". Eventually we will have some type of tutorial but I cannot say if it will be when released. BTW: I have some articles from the General that go very deeply into "The best way to play each nation" but I'm willing to take anything you're willing to send at [email]marshalle@matrixgames.com[/email] THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HELP!

Zoner:

You are so right! The nation interaction is the strength in this game and I don't think we'll ever be able to duplicate human deceitfulness in this AI. I always thought that this game would mainly be played by people but maybe only 6 guys could play in which case the AI could handle the rest. Getting 7 people to sit down and play a game is difficult these days. That's another reason that we think PBEM will be big for this game. Anyway thanks!

Jnier:

That's the plan ... but remember, we're flexible. Bendable maybe a more accurate term ... if bendable is a legal word :)

Thank you all

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 10
Re: Re: I can't wait! - 12/7/2002 8:27:11 AM   
EarlPembroke

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ktarn
[B]
Whats the point in using a worse peace model than the one that original EiA had? I hope you will use a model thats as close to EiH as possible, perhaps with some more options added, not that any come to mind right now. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ktarn,

As Marshall said, the question was directed more at how to implement on the computer the peace settlement procedure from EiA, not something to replace it. Our point was that EU2 is a game that offers a set of peace options from which one nation can make offers. I would not want to limit it to the type of things EU2 offers (EiA is more rich this way), but was speaking more about the method of accomplishing it via programming.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 11
Peace Terms - 12/7/2002 8:52:46 AM   
martinmb

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/3/2002
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		EarlPembroke,

You bring up an interesting question, which I believe I tried to address in my first posting

“As for the terms of surrender, depending on what is available to the victor, there should then appear in a separate window. The victor chooses 3 options then the AI will or will not choose it's cancellation term. Depending on if the peace is conditional or unconditional.”

One problem that I foresee is that with this system, I suggested, it might not work when a nation is surrendering to two different powers at the same time. If you remember when this occurs the victorious nations take turns selecting peace terms, with no single peace term allowed to be repeated. I believe that this idea has merit but as to its application that is another story.
I also believe that the peace terms themselves should not be changed maybe added to but not subtracted from.

M
:cool:

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 12
- 12/7/2002 9:13:29 AM   
EarlPembroke

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline 		Yes .... there are things you can add with computers that would have been left out of the board game (due to it being complex enough for what they were targeting at the time). For instance, Caribbean trade or the sale of the Louisiana Purchase (gains favor for France with America, more likely to fight a war with Britain), etc. An additional peace option would be reduction of trade due to losing control of a Caribbean island.

Speaking of the War of 1812 (USA vs. Britain), a computer game allows more option for including something of it than a board game (which would have required a separate map). A larger-scale map of America, for instance (i.e. not to the same level of detail as Europe as it was not a main theater). Of course, that might just be in the add-on. :P

But as you mentioned, the surrender to multiple enemies at once could be a bit more difficult to recreate. There remain some things easier to do with humans than computers, I guess.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 13
battles - 12/7/2002 8:25:47 PM   
Sir Neil

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		what will the battles be like?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 14
- 12/9/2002 8:32:28 PM   
KevanB

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 12/9/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		I think the standard surrender conditions a la boardgame are fine, though how you would simulate the AI is... interesting. Though it verges on plagerism, the method Eu2 has used might be a good alternative when dealing with the AI rather than players

As an aside, do you intend to allow more than 7 player combinations ( ie a polish player for 1788+, USA 1812 etc) . though the power/projection of these smaller nations have less military/economical involvement for the player in question, the increase in diplomacy always added to the richness of pbem games....

just a ha'pennies thought.

kevanB
:cool:

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 15
- 12/10/2002 10:40:12 AM   
EarlPembroke

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline 		That's a good question. Marshall earlier said, "First of all, when playing by yourself, you can be any nation you want ... NO LIMITATIONS! " But he didn't mention how it would work with multiplayer.

I also wondered what scenarios they are planning to ship with the game. Though I do hope it is made in such a way as to allow players to create their own scenarios.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 16
Surrender - 12/17/2002 4:10:24 AM   
Bralan3

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/17/2002
Status: offline 		I'd also love to help test this.

Regarding surrender process, it sounds like you will have to keep a date of when each MP went to war with the surrendering MP, and then give them options in sequence. I'd guess then having the computer deselect a specific option, if conditional, would be required, after each selection, and then have that MP reselect before moving to the next MP, etc..until complete.

If you allow one MP (up to)3 selections before allowing any other MP a selection, you will be limiting the additional MP's in a way that would be pretty unworkable.

Alternately, you could have the AI select an option first, but programming that without understanding the impacts, might be really really hard.

There are some really decent national objectives modifyers out there on the web for each MP for playing solitaire that might well help setup that AI. (Don't know how others feel about this). You might look at that as a mechanism to help you determine what could or should be accepted/ceded.

Bral

_____________________________

pbl

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 17
Testing and experience - 12/18/2002 7:01:50 AM   
trw2264

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 12/18/2002
Status: offline 		I have played EIA since 1986. I have played FTF, snail-mail and e-mail. I would like to be a beta tester when the time come.

Thank you

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 18
Re: Surrender - 12/18/2002 11:45:03 AM   
EarlPembroke

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bralan3
[B]Regarding surrender process, it sounds like you will have to keep a date of when each MP went to war with the surrendering MP, and then give them options in sequence. I'd guess then having the computer deselect a specific option, if conditional, would be required, after each selection, and then have that MP reselect before moving to the next MP, etc..until complete.

If you allow one MP (up to)3 selections before allowing any other MP a selection, you will be limiting the additional MP's in a way that would be pretty unworkable.

Alternately, you could have the AI select an option first, but programming that without understanding the impacts, might be really really hard.
Bral [/B][/QUOTE]

That is a sticking point. If you don't have the computer select in advance, then you could game it into getting what you want (i.e. if the computer denies one of your selections, if you want a province, you select other peace conditions, let the computer deselect one of those, then go back to add the province into your conditions - which is what you really wanted in the first place). But as you said, programming it to make its choice of what condition to block makes it harder to program. It would have to go through an evaluation of each possible condition (considering long-term money and manpower effects, the nation's strategic objective, relative balance of power, etc.), then select. We mentioned EU2 as a good model - these are the things that will make EiA even better, but more complex to create. :eek:

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 19
Surrender Terms - 12/19/2002 10:26:27 PM   
martinmb

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/3/2002
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		EarlPembrooke

I like your answer, however the approach that I was thinking of was that the Victor chooses his three terms first. Then the computor can deselect one of his existing selections. This would then prevent what you were saying above.
As for surrendering to more thatn one nation at a time, e.g. Prussia surrenders to France and Russia, France chooses 3 terms and then Russia chooses 3 terms. The computor then selects one from each group to deselect. If France or Russia should choose the same term of surrender then the computor should show what has been doubled up on and ask the players to select again. (Just the terms that were duplicated)
For example France Dow'd Prussia first then Russia Dow'd Prussia one month later. Now only one term has been duplicated in the terms of surrender. France gets that duplicated choice while Russia has to choose one other option open to her. Once the terms of surrender selection is complete then the computor will deselect one term from each list.
Make sence?

M:cool:

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 20
- 12/19/2002 10:32:02 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		If by jumping into the middle of this I have missed something, please do not hesitate to hit me over the head with a large wooden badger.

By letting the victor choose three and then the PC blocks, aren't you losing the fun of having the opponent errantly block the wrong pick? A minor point, perhaps.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 21
Surrender Terms - 12/19/2002 10:47:40 PM   
martinmb

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/3/2002
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		Reknoy,

Not really, as Marshall said earlier the AI will have choosen a "Grand Strategy" to follow. Under such a strategy the computor would probably have a list of terms of surrender listed in a priority for which to "deselect".
Most of the times that I have played EiA (since it came out), I have surrendered many many times. In all of the games that I have played, except for one, it has always been a "house rule" or al least the "gentlman's way" to talk to the defeated and talk about some of the minor details. Our rule of thumb was he who started it was to say it first.

M :D

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 22
- 12/19/2002 11:31:45 PM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		No doubt -- and I follow you on the "gentlemen's" way of handling it.

Still, it gives the game that diplomatic edge to be able to hose the defeated country and after they surrender conditionally (having protected corps), you take land and demand a province (provided the prerequisites are met).

But I see your point. Regardless, it's not something I would lose sleep over (if the game did not allow for such shenanigans)

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 23
- 1/2/2003 10:19:17 AM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline 		on a more technical note;

please try to put all the AI scripts in separate easy to edit files for easy moddabiltiy

if the AI files are easy to modify then the game will organically improve over time as people mod the files, and bugs can be found quickly by easily modifying a single value. if you could also include some kind of documentation on it that would be cool.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 24
- 1/3/2003 12:07:41 AM   
Sir Neil

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		I would also like to help at testing the game, It would also give me a chance to get a preview done, hoppfully by that time my site will be finished.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 25
- 1/4/2003 8:29:02 AM   
EarlPembroke

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by carnifex
[B]on a more technical note;

please try to put all the AI scripts in separate easy to edit files for easy moddabiltiy

if the AI files are easy to modify then the game will organically improve over time as people mod the files, and bugs can be found quickly by easily modifying a single value. if you could also include some kind of documentation on it that would be cool. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed, Carnifex. I think that was mentioned in an earlier post (I mentioned it somewhere, and probably someone else was first).

Well, Martin & Reknoy, now we can read (in the January update) the flow of how they have done the surrender code.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 26
- 1/4/2003 8:52:33 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		Yes, I do like the flow of the surrender process. Quite true to the rules.

Not that it necc. matters, but it certainly speaks to the designers' willingness to track the rules. Most cool.

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 27
Surrender (I do) - 1/4/2003 10:37:46 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Interesting points... (Scratching my head)???

Maybe a little more detail should help...

Forgive the simplicity...

[SURRENDER]

Example is : France Surrenders to Spain (I know, I know crazy example but endulge me for a moment).

Game performs as below:


1. Spain, France is suing for peace. Which peace will you offer?
A. Conditional
B. Uncondtional

2. Spain offers conditional.

3. France must accept and chooses A.1. Condition (Needn't remove any corps).

4. List box pops up with terms B2-B7 options as available. Note that B1 is not available to be picked.

Basically, the computer won't let an invalid choice be picked. As for simultaneous peace with multiple countries, No condition can be picked more than once (Except C6 which I have not coded for as of yet) but the premise would be to scroll through the list of victors letting the computer eliminate choices already made by previous victors.

As for my order of selection ... haven't tracked DOW dates yet but that is what should and could be done.

As for simultaneous peace with an alliance, I was simply going to allow the power with the higher PS pick first. This was easier than a competitive die roll.

One problem that I forsee is how to do this in PBEM without blasting 100 emails per surrender ... I'll work on this !

[AI SCRIPTS]

This is a great subject. I'm intrigued at the idea but we still don't know how much editing/scripting to allow the players to do. These are development scripts in the game and are pretty low level. Allowing that much control could endanger stability with certain combinations picked so please don't think that there will be a VISUAL EIA++ development language out there ... I would have bloody (or bloodier) nubs banging on the KBD to do that!

[COUNTRY COMBINATIONS IN MULTIPLAYER]

Great subject. In a hotseat mode, allowing the PC to control certain MPs is not a problem. PBEM/IP well ... we haven't tackled that one yet except maybe to allow a variant of UMP rules to be in play???

[SCENARIOS AND AVAILABLE MP COUNTRIES]

We're just writing 1805 NOW but YES there will be many scenarios in the game including 1788, etc. Today the only countries that could be played by a human/AI are the standard
France, Gbr, Spain, Prussia, Turkey, Russia and Austria. These countries could be played by a human or AI.

Anyway, sorry for the long message but I LOVE reading these posts because you guys have so much more experience than I and it helps me greatly to see conversations from veteran Guard units. I wish I could reply more often but then nothing would get done!

Thanks everybody

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 28
- 1/4/2003 11:03:01 AM   
Reknoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 11/26/2002
Status: offline 		The process you describe for surrender sounds great.

As for the rest, it's amazing to have so much interactive contact with the developers. You're gaining more customers hopefully as a result.

Reknoy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 29
- 1/5/2003 8:23:45 AM   
EarlPembroke

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Memphis, TN, USA
Status: offline 		Marshall,

Thanks for posting occasionally. That is the best policy, as you said, so you get some coding done and we stay excited about the game. :)

In terms of player editing, I was thinking along the lines of creating new scenarios (so assigning different province ownership, creating new leaders, editing the relationship between countries, maximum allowable and type of corps, etc.). Trying to make rules (e.g. attrition) editable would be a nightmare. Anyway, it will be great to have the game playable on computer - especially by developers who ask for customer input!

Keep up the good work.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> December Update! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.203