Phases Flow of this Game

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Phases Flow of this Game

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 >> Phases Flow of this Game

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Phases Flow of this Game - 2/20/2017 2:46:16 AM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

Has there been any changes or enhancements to speed up this game, given that there are 4 phases per player per month to do. Have you found a way around this problem yet? I havent updated need to get info first. Plesae dont say that people do not need to play every phase. Well see thats the problem becasue people do, the auto skip function id voluntary and no one complies, to keep the pace of the game going.

< Message edited by gazfun -- 2/20/2017 9:20:55 PM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 2/20/2017 10:49:35 PM

pzgndr

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

Gaz, short answer is no, no change to the previous PBEM process. However, I am not convinced that even the old process from v1.08 is working perfectly in v1.21. There are still some issues with sim diplomacy that I may or may not be able to resolve.

One reason is that Marshall ported the code back with v1.09 or 1.10 from the older Borland C++Builder to the newer (then) CodeGear C++Builder 2007, and that led to the v1.20 public beta a couple years ago that languished. When I picked this up to work on v1.21, it's still with the CodeGear compiler. The big problem with PBEM is that it was never really exercised at all with v1.20, and even when I started posting some v1.21 hotfixes last summer and asked for some PBEM playtesting I got no response. So now we have a play group trying a PBEM game and finding some issues. I think I fixed one issue with a path problem and the game is progressing through setup. But... I have also been doing some PBEM playtesting and finding problems getting through Feb 1805 and beyond sim dip and the first eco phase, either loaning money works or doesn't work, DOWs works or doesn't work, PBEM Admin changes work or don't work, etc. It's frustrating.

I suspect there is a database problem someplace caused by old code using a 2007 pre-Vista compiler being run on newer Win7-Win10 systems with old WinXP compatibility; this is just not good. Like I said, I may or may not be able to resolve the PBEM issues now for this release. What I want to do next after we go final with v1.21.04 official update (with or without PBEM working) is port the code to the latest Embarcadero C++Builder Berlin which is Win10 compatible. Hopefully this approach is 1) doable, 2) results in more stable code, and 3) resolves the database problems.

OK. All that said, if/when we get the current PBEM process working as intended, the big question is... what specific changes or enhancements do players want in order to speed up the game? Marshall may get back involved in EIA code development at some point and he has some intentions of implementing TCP/IP or NetPlay capability, and we'll have to wait and see about that. But getting back to PBEM, yes there is the skip capability and known problems with trying to implement the sim eco phase, so other than that what else should be done? I can add ideas to the list and see what I can do later.

_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 2

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 2/21/2017 1:28:36 AM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

There is a post here somewhere where I clearly wrote out how this can be fixed, maybe its deleted. But it mainly has to do if a nations is at war or not. Reinforcement can be auto pooled at previously selected position in the production phase selection Town or Corps if not at war. The auto skipping function is left up to the player to do, rather if there is no reinforcement that option is redundant.

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 3

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 2/21/2017 12:30:30 PM

pzgndr

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

I'll try to find the old posting with ideas and add them to the ToDo list. I agree, the program could auto-skip reinforcement phase if there are no reinforcements and naval phase if there are no naval units or builds to place.

_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 4

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/2/2017 6:58:01 AM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

pzgndr I dont know if you found my suggestions there but it was basically that if people had reinforcements to place or Naval factors to place those are the only countries that should have a reinforcement phase. Other than placing infantry units basically all where due regardless of the country at similar times. Those that dont have a navy like prussia, shouldn't a naval phase.
Too many times phases where wasted where people didn't put in auto skip, or auto skip didn't work.

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 5

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/3/2017 12:44:48 AM

pzgndr

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

gazfun I think I can add auto-skipping where appropriate, as you suggest.

Python also mentioned something about sim dip. Players cannot skip this, so even if they have no dip actions they must still complete the phase? It may be simultaneous, but the last player is still waiting to get everyone's turn and delays happen. This begs the question if sim dip is worth it or not; certainly in the early game and opening moves, but not so much later on when things settle down. I can try to restore the skip function but it may be cleaner to undo the sim dip if that makes more sense in the long run. This warrants a discussion amongst experienced pbem player groups.

For now, Matrix has v1.21.04 for release and I'm waiting for the installer to test.

_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 6

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/3/2017 9:35:29 AM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

Simultaneous Diplomacy should stay part of the game, this wasn't the original part of the game design, and Im glad that this has been introduced. Well this phase is a "we go" function and we at TGHQ introduce a 24 hours rule from when the Diplomacy starts or whatever house rule you want to apply, the GM should be able to move the game onwards if no notification hasn't been received, by the delaying player, thats how we used to get on with that. Taking the simultaneous function out of EiA will delay the game further. Besides players know when a month ends, and the process of that occurring is not a surprise to anyone, so I found that players where planning for the dip Phase much earlier anyway as they should. To only talk diplomacy at the time when the diplomacy phase occurs is a game waste of time, this should be a continuous item for discussion anyway.
We have had 7 to 8 games of EiA going at the same time, and I know what Im talking about here.

< Message edited by gazfun -- 4/3/2017 9:36:38 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 7

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/4/2017 12:05:00 AM

pzgndr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun
... and I know what Im talking about here.

And I know you do! So I will look to keep sim dip and if possible to re-activate the skip option.

FYI, Marshall migrated the code from Borland to CodeGear between v1.08 and v1.21. Folks did not play that wide-screen public beta version much years ago due to the combat screen glitch. So no pbem testing as far as I know?

I'm in the process of migrating the code from CodeGear to Embarcadero and struggling to get through Unicode implementations. I've got a successful compile so far but I need to resolve run-time errors and then verify the game works correctly. Either I do that and continue development with Embarcadero, or else go back and continue development with CodeGear C++Builder 2007 (2007!) and hope for the best. Either way, there are some pbem issues we need to playtest to verify pbem works. Certainly the goal is to have this game work as efficiently as possible for up to 7 players. Unfortunately, v1.21.04 is going to fall short of that goal.

_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 8

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/5/2017 1:01:31 PM

DCWhitworth

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Simultaneous Diplomacy should stay part of the game, this wasn't the original part of the game design, and Im glad that this has been introduced. Well this phase is a "we go" function and we at TGHQ introduce a 24 hours rule from when the Diplomacy starts or whatever house rule you want to apply, the GM should be able to move the game onwards if no notification hasn't been received, by the delaying player, thats how we used to get on with that. Taking the simultaneous function out of EiA will delay the game further. Besides players know when a month ends, and the process of that occurring is not a surprise to anyone, so I found that players where planning for the dip Phase much earlier anyway as they should. To only talk diplomacy at the time when the diplomacy phase occurs is a game waste of time, this should be a continuous item for discussion anyway.
We have had 7 to 8 games of EiA going at the same time, and I know what Im talking about here.

I'm not sure I agree with you about simul diplomacy. My experience is that it speeds the game somewhat in the early stages when everyone is tinkering with minor countries, but once that is past it becomes a drag. In the original process, by the time you got somewhat into the game, the majority of nations would have their diplomacy phases set to auto skip. With simul you can't do that so everyone has to submit a file, even those who have no interest in doing anything in the diplomacy phase, which slows things up. Also IIRC the host can't skip other nations diplomacy phases, so you get stuck if someone doesn't submit a turn.

IF we keep simul diplomacy then in my opinion the following issues must be addressed -

1. Inability for nations to auto-skip their diplomacy
2. Inability for host to skip another nations diplomacy phase
3. Inability for host to create backup files during diplomacy

The idea of simultaneous diplomacy is a reasonable one but it seems to me that it is an unfinished product.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 9

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/5/2017 1:19:21 PM

DCWhitworth

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

pzgndr I dont know if you found my suggestions there but it was basically that if people had reinforcements to place or Naval factors to place those are the only countries that should have a reinforcement phase. Other than placing infantry units basically all where due regardless of the country at similar times. Those that dont have a navy like prussia, shouldn't a naval phase.
Too many times phases where wasted where people didn't put in auto skip, or auto skip didn't work.

I have a problem with this. There are many times when you might want to do things in the reinforcement phase other than place reinforcements. The game can't reasonably assume you do not need a reinforcement phase at any stage of the game. You can transfer forces to and from garrisons, add and remove leaders, add corps counters, remove counters, transfer factors between corps, give individual units orders, lend units to allies, select your move position. None of these involve having reinforcements available.

In summary it is going to be impossible for the game to find any circumstances where it could auto skip a nation's reinforcement phase. Auto skipping a naval phase of a nation that has no ships is reasonable, but hardly worth the programming time.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 10

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/6/2017 9:25:11 PM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

pzgndr I dont know if you found my suggestions there but it was basically that if people had reinforcements to place or Naval factors to place those are the only countries that should have a reinforcement phase. Other than placing infantry units basically all where due regardless of the country at similar times. Those that dont have a navy like prussia, shouldn't a naval phase.
Too many times phases where wasted where people didn't put in auto skip, or auto skip didn't work.

I have a problem with this. There are many times when you might want to do things in the reinforcement phase other than place reinforcements. The game can't reasonably assume you do not need a reinforcement phase at any stage of the game. You can transfer forces to and from garrisons, add and remove leaders, add corps counters, remove counters, transfer factors between corps, give individual units orders, lend units to allies, select your move position. None of these involve having reinforcements available.

In summary it is going to be impossible for the game to find any circumstances where it could auto skip a nation's reinforcement phase. Auto skipping a naval phase of a nation that has no ships is reasonable, but hardly worth the programming time.

On the occasion that what you say is true only at war that anyone would need to use the reinforcement phase monthly. If not at war once a quarter would be the utmost, you can do the rest of your house work at that time. and by what I see what you are saying is that you are happy with the 48 + files per month to play this game?, if not then you have not offered anything to make this game to finish at a reasonable time. I know I dont want to spend another 7 years of my life on something that goes as slow as it does now. And you wont get players doing what is necessary always to get you there faster.

_____________________________

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 11

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/7/2017 9:54:48 AM

DCWhitworth

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

pzgndr I dont know if you found my suggestions there but it was basically that if people had reinforcements to place or Naval factors to place those are the only countries that should have a reinforcement phase. Other than placing infantry units basically all where due regardless of the country at similar times. Those that dont have a navy like prussia, shouldn't a naval phase.
Too many times phases where wasted where people didn't put in auto skip, or auto skip didn't work.

I have a problem with this. There are many times when you might want to do things in the reinforcement phase other than place reinforcements. The game can't reasonably assume you do not need a reinforcement phase at any stage of the game. You can transfer forces to and from garrisons, add and remove leaders, add corps counters, remove counters, transfer factors between corps, give individual units orders, lend units to allies, select your move position. None of these involve having reinforcements available.

In summary it is going to be impossible for the game to find any circumstances where it could auto skip a nation's reinforcement phase. Auto skipping a naval phase of a nation that has no ships is reasonable, but hardly worth the programming time.

On the occasion that what you say is true only at war that anyone would need to use the reinforcement phase monthly. If not at war once a quarter would be the utmost, you can do the rest of your house work at that time. and by what I see what you are saying is that you are happy with the 48 + files per month to play this game?, if not then you have not offered anything to make this game to finish at a reasonable time. I know I dont want to spend another 7 years of my life on something that goes as slow as it does now. And you wont get players doing what is necessary always to get you there faster.

OK here's an idea, instead of an autoskip, how about a semi-autoskip ?

When you finish your diplomacy phase and the game sees that you have no reinforcements to place, and your phase has not already been set to skip, you get a prompt "You have no reinforcements to place in the next phase, should your reinforcement phase be skipped ?" and offers two boxes, yes or no.

Sadly I feel that without a major redesign and possibly fundamental conceptual change the PBEM game is doomed to be lengthy. I think the best available solution is to continually keep on top of players and get them to skip as often as possible, be rigid about skipping late turns and generally keep the pressure on to keep the game moving. Changes to the game may help a bit, but personally I'd rather see the limited programming resources that are available being focussed on other things.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 12

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/7/2017 2:02:35 PM

pzgndr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

OK here's an idea, instead of an autoskip, how about a semi-autoskip ?

When you finish your diplomacy phase and the game sees that you have no reinforcements to place, and your phase has not already been set to skip, you get a prompt "You have no reinforcements to place in the next phase, should your reinforcement phase be skipped ?" and offers two boxes, yes or no.

Sadly I feel that without a major redesign and possibly fundamental conceptual change the PBEM game is doomed to be lengthy...

I was thinking along the same line, to add prompts and remind players to skip? That should be doable, along with restoring the skip capability for sim dip.

And I agree that by the nature of this boardgame for multiple players and multiple phases and then other interactive actions when land and naval combats occur, there's just no way this is ever going to be fast across multiple time zones. Maybe NetPlay could work for some rare play groups, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I will continue to suggest that pbem with smaller play groups of say 3-4 with some more AI improvements and enhancements to make the remaining computer opponents more challenging may be the better path forward. Certainly for solitaire games, and smaller games would then progress faster which should be more enjoyable. I'll be happy to work off another 50 bugs or so for the next update over the coming year if I'm lucky...

_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 13

RE: Phases Flow of this Game - 4/8/2017 12:29:31 AM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

I think prompting is a good idea pzgndr there needs to be messages to ensure that items can be skipped. And being still essentially a board game by practice there needs to be messages in built into the system. TGHQ site has now live chat and file swaps which we are experimenting with now and this could help a bit with the speed of the game.
Also there have been new Napoleonic titles Like WoN that have come into play and although they are still lacking in many respects they are not bound by the copyright issues that this title has to comply with. I speak of basically of " we Go" turns where 5 years can be completed in less than a 9 months. Detailed combat system etc, but it too needs a lot of work still, as this wasn't tested properly which has disproportionate starting forces from the historical.

Id be interested at helping and looking at it again, as a tester if you need anymore assistance mate.
Also we have a 3 or 4 players that want to help out as well here at TGHQ

< Message edited by gazfun -- 4/8/2017 1:22:19 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 14