Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The double move is an "artifact" of non-simul turn-based play, there's no need for it

 
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 >> The double move is an "artifact" of non-simul turn-based play, there's no need for it Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The double move is an "artifact" of non-simul... - 7/4/2003 9:57:47 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by soapyfrog
[B].......The double move is an "artifact" of non-simul turn-based play, there is no need to perpetuate it in a computer game version.............

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well said Soapyfrog. Why does an unreal quality for a game like a double turn have to be in the computer version of the game? Like you point out, it isn't necessary.

Ok, I will hang around for a little longer to see how this game ends up.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 31
Now just hang on Guys! - 7/4/2003 10:23:53 AM   
Marshall Ellis


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

Don't cut us out yet! You must remember that we at Matrix got the LEGAL RIGHTS and PERMISSION from the EIA guys to do this game and we CANNOT put their name on just anything! If we deviate too much from the original then why call it EIA, in fact could we call it EIA?

You're right, our original engine was simultaneous movement and personally , I liked it (It was my design so I'm a little partial to it like a new baby) BUT after Matrix secured the rights to do the computer version of EIA, we sat down and discussed what had to be changed. We ALL agreed that turn based movement was a biggy (It was mentioned on these forums as a very high priority to maintain).

Jnier:

I'm betting on it being playable. I've never played in PBEM EIA simultaneous movement. How does that work? How do you compensate for the double moves? I'm curious...???
I don't take anything negative. I'm a big boy so shoot straight and tell it the way it is. You won't make me mad or lose any respect from me!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 32
- 7/4/2003 10:53:17 AM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		I don't think the double move really needs to be compensated for at all.

My favorite turn-based simultaneous movement system would be impulse based.

break down the movement phase into 5 impulses. In each impulse where a given unit type is called for to move, it gets to move one space. If the destination space costs 2 movement points the corps must remain stationary for one impulse prior to moving in.

Movement would proceed in the follwing sequence, with each impulse being secret plotted and resolved simultaneously.

Impulse 1: Cav
Impulse 2: Cav, Inf
Impulse 3: Cav, Inf
Impulse 4: Cav, Inf
Impulse 5: Cav

French inf corps may make an additonal movement in either impulse 1 or impulse 5, decided globally for all their corps at the start of the mvoement phase (this would allow France a sort of mini- double move).

All combat is resolved after all movement impulses are finished, all other rules apply normally.

This would probably slow the game down a bit (more "decision points"), but it would be a great option to have for the ultimate in Napoleonic operations. If it were coupled with a limited Fog-of-War type option is would be unsurpassed in coolness :D

The 2nd way to do it would be to have secret simultaneous plotted movement, with the game engine working out where the movement of stacks intersects and therefore where the battles take place.

My vote is for impulse movement, implemented at least as an option.

Real-Time movement should not be an option... we already have EU2 which does that quite nicely. The Turn-Based nature of the game should of course be preserved.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 33
- 7/4/2003 11:02:01 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		Is this anything like the movement in WIF? If so, I do not think it needs to apply to such a "grand strategy" game as EiA. EiA is not meant to be a heavy tactical game. And I think Marshall is right, if you were to change too much, why call it EiA? Would it be EiA? I think if you created a new game based on a lot of EiA stuff, that would be stealing. And if you are going to change it that much, then why not create a new game. Dominance is a big part of the game, and you all are willing to take a big advantage of being dominant away from the dominant powers. I understand what you guys are saying about making improvements and such, I just don't think this is one department that it needs to occur in.

_____________________________


(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 34
Sim movement - 7/4/2003 2:29:27 PM   
Wynter

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/10/2003
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Marshall Ellis and everyone else,

Simultaneous (impulse) movement was created to enhance game speed when playing PBEM. Game speed is the most essential factor of a Empires in Arms game, if it slows down to much, people lose interest and wander off. Therefore I try to maintain a cycle of playing one full game month in one week. Even at this speed, the Grand Campaign will take near three years to complete.

The EIA computer game as it is now, is playable in hot seat, but IMO not playable using PBEM. There is too much required player interaction: diplomacy, call to allies, reinforcement, naval phase and land phase. Each of these five phases have to be processed by each of the seven players: we're talking already 35 communication packages and user interactions.
I, as PBEM GM, have the experience that one player action takes up to 24 hours to complete (send message to player, player reads and process message, player answers message), so to work through all five phases with seven players would take over a month in real time. Add some battles (which also require player interaction: tactics, guard commitment...) and you'll see that it totaly escalates and becomes unplayable.

Therefore, Marshall, I beg you to reconcider your decision and include sim movement for PBEM. If you would like to gain some experience in a PBEM game, I invite you to take a look at our game. Maybe one of our players (John/Reknoy or Jason/jnier) can take you along or you could take a (virtual) look over my shoulder to see what a GM does to keep the game going.
If you're interested, contact me at:
[email]orc.warlord@skynet.be[/email]

Jeroen.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 35
- 7/4/2003 3:13:13 PM   
John Umber

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		[B]Impulse movement[/B]

EIA was never designed to be played as PBEM, but is a feature we have adepted the game for. It is true every turn last a horrible amount of time. Even playing the grand campaign over the board is almost impossible. 500 hours is an awful long time for the same seven players.

Using options is a nice idea for PBEM or hotseat if someone wish to use simultaneous movement. Using impulses could speed up the game a lot. Planning step by step is not that bad. The dominant advantaged could be simulated by giving the french/english option of moving their impulses between turns. Example french could move (maximum 2 impulses between turns?) so their offensive gets two free movements impulses the turn after their choice. This could also be done in "hidden". A little surprise if the opponents are not watching. Could work nicely and is not all different from the original. Remember that France doesn't have double movement points. Just move them after each other. Making a rush, the allied have the same number of movement points/turns.

This would shorten PBEM by hours every turn. Remember that playing games with someone in a different timezone is very anoying from time to time...

Just a little thought for you...

Thank you for your time Ellis plus others!

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 36
- 7/4/2003 8:09:58 PM   
soapyfrog

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 6/3/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by ryta1203
[B]Is this anything like the movement in WIF? If so, I do not think it needs to apply to such a "grand strategy" game as EiA. EiA is not meant to be a heavy tactical game. And I think Marshall is right, if you were to change too much, why call it EiA? Would it be EiA? I think if you created a new game based on a lot of EiA stuff, that would be stealing. And if you are going to change it that much, then why not create a new game. Dominance is a big part of the game, and you all are willing to take a big advantage of being dominant away from the dominant powers. I understand what you guys are saying about making improvements and such, I just don't think this is one department that it needs to occur in. [/B][/QUOTE]

WiF does use "impulses" but it's very different concept in that game. In WiF an "impulse" is like a full monthly turn in EiA, and the "game turn" is actually the economic turn.

My proposed simultaneous movement system for EiA (although I think not quite like the "impulse" system used in EiA PBEM) would surely be an improvement, as in reality armies did not wait around while their opponents dashed around, only to move great distances themselves while their opponents stood still in turn... no I assure you all those armies were moving simultaneously. An impulse system like I outlined above would be the closest thing to simulating that in EiA while keeping it turn-based.

It would still be EiA in all respects! Rejecting improvements to the game just becuase they would some small amount of complexity is not a good idea... things like the advanced naval combat ruls are a good example of an improvement to the game that most people now find vital.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 37
- 7/4/2003 8:28:58 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		The double-move feature is a VERY good way of simulating
Napoleon having the initiative.

Very difficult to simulate that with simultaneous.

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 38
- 7/4/2003 8:31:08 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline 		One thing that I've always observed about EiA is that it never purported to be THE "realistic" strategy game of the Napoleonic Wars. It was a nice, gamey contrivance, based loosely on the "Diplomacy"/"Machiavelli" model with a bit more detail for tactical flavor. Appeals to "realism" are meaningful ONLY if the dispute is so fine that one more "straw" will tilt the scales in a given, proper direction.

I understand Marshall's and Matrix's concern about [I]making[/I] EiA, the board game, for the PC. Much the same approach as AH making 3R for the PC. If there are board game tactics (as there were in 3R) for "getting" a "double move", then omitting them is unfaithful to the original game.

However, IF your alternative is designed to make the game much, much better AND improve multiplayer gameplay by speeding up the play by eliminating the notorious multiple file exchanges, that IS a worthy goal. EiA in its original form was designed to be played with up to 7 players FTF. Now that the medium is changing to pbem by up to 7 players around the world, this is a MAJOR change of design intent itself. No less than the importance -- and perhaps more important a design facet -- than any "double move" strategem.

Therefore, in the interest of optimizing the PC game's design for its intended medium of play, I would encourage the design team to make certain deviations from the "original rules" where it is necessary to make gameplay actually feasible.

Stick to the letter of the rules when all things are equal (IOW, don't change something just b/c it seems "better"), but if the decision impacts a major concern as to how the PC game will be played in the FIRST INSTANCE, then consider carefully how important something is to the original design intent of the game before you abandon it.

From past pbem of other games w/ multiple players (more than two), excessive file exchanges KILLED every game. Every single one. That is not in the interest of EiA for the PC, IMO.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 39
I don't get it. - 7/4/2003 10:03:27 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		There is supposed to be a stock EiA version that will be just like the original. No problem there. Keep the bloody double movement thingee there. The EiA people will be happy.

Then there is supposed to be the enhanced version that has all of the REAL COOL changes that we want -like simultaneous movement. I'm sure that EiH has influenced a lot there. This version isn't supposed to be EiA at all, so why worry if it doesn't resemble EiA or if it can't be called EiA???

It doesn't make sense.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 40
TCP/IP and not PBEM - 7/4/2003 10:14:10 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		If EiA was not made for PBEM, but rather for TCP/IP play, then I bet every EiA fan will find the time to play on a weekend or whenever. Yes, even 7 players if they are dedicated.

TCP/IP play with the ability to send dispatches to any particular player for the diplomatic side of things will make gameplay a hundred times faster and better than PBEM, IMO. This problem of the double movement thingee will simply not exist.

PBEM is the problem because this game was never designed for it. It was designed for folks to play when they're all assembled at the same time. For players in different locations, TCP/IP play facilitates this completely.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 41
- 7/5/2003 2:16:54 AM   
John Umber

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		[B]TCP/IP[/B]

This should remove the double movement problem, but then there is created another problem. What happens if the players are NOT from the same time zone? As it is plain to see in this forum, players are spread across the entire globe. I would like to be able to play versus people in Australia, but not spending the night just to "be there".

If possible, can there be a "PBEM" version and a "Hotseat/TCP/IP" version? As mention before options are added to the game for enhancement. This could be an option?

Don't dismiss the impulse idea, it has several advantages...

Thank you

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 42
- 7/5/2003 2:30:32 AM   
Forward_March

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 6/26/2003
Status: offline 		Thanks for not forgetting us people in Australia, John:)

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 43
- 7/5/2003 3:17:31 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		I don't mind the impulse idea, I just think it should be an option maybe. Like many other people here, I don't care how long the game takes to come out, as long as it comes out, and when it does it is good. Playing real time TCP/IP and against the comps I would prefer non-simul movement, but simul movement with PBEM would speed the game up dramatically.

_____________________________


(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 44
I'm glad you asked that. - 7/5/2003 4:00:40 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Umber
[B][B]TCP/IP[/B]

............... What happens if the players are NOT from the same time zone? ................... [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, that really isn't a problem at all.

Just about every Sunday morning at 0700, I play Combat Mission via TCP/IP with my best friend who lives in Mannheim, Germany. I know that he is nine hours ahead of me since I'm in California, but we are able to get in 4 to 5 hours great of wargaming without any problem.

How long does a game of EiA take to play if everyone is there at the same location? Playing via TCP/IP would be the same if everyone had the time. (I'd be willing to be that it isn't as long as a PBEM game.)

Yes, there are limits to just about everything and time zones can be a problem. Oh by the way, there wasn't have any problem wargaming with my friend when he lived in Seoul, South Korea for two years either. Yet, Germany to South Korea might be a kittle bit of a stretch. :)

You just have to set aside the time to wargame -period. Granted, with seven all living in widely different time zones it might get a little trying, but I'd be willing to be that there might be a whole lot more wargamers that are closer to you than you think.

I know some like PBEM and won't change no matter how good TCP/IP can be and that is ok with me.

I just wish the PBEM crowd wouldn't limit the rest of us by needing such an unreal rule as double movement.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 45
- 7/5/2003 4:14:03 AM   
Forward_March

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 6/26/2003
Status: offline 		Apparently not many of you fellow's wives have complained about being "digitally divorced". LOL

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 46
- 7/5/2003 4:14:11 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		I think we should all bear in mind that there is a TREMENDOUS
interest in the Matrix developement of this game.

It is a topic on every game forum I read.

The Hardcore wargammers are hoping for a REAL wargame out of us. let us not drop the ball here

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 47
Good one - 7/5/2003 6:25:06 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Forward_March
[B]Apparently not many of you fellow's wives have complained about being "digitally divorced". LOL [/B][/QUOTE]

My wife of sixteen years thinks that wargaming is a little strange, but she tolerates it just fine. Now really, once a week isn't all that bad.

The one thing that is VERY important is to remember to take off your "game face" after a wargame. That and remembering to have a fair amount of quality time with her throughout the week.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 48
- 7/5/2003 7:36:52 AM   
StCyr

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline 		(Navy)
Impulse 1: Cav (Navy)
Impulse 2: Cav, Inf (Navy)
Impulse 3: Cav, Inf (Navy)
Impulse 4: Cav, Inf (Navy)
Impulse 5: Cav (Navy)
(Navy)

It would need 7 Impulse, of course ships and men move at the same time. You could add an extra impulse that is just optional reserved for the British Navy, while one (land)impulse may be reserved for french Inf.


Another option would be like this:

Impulse 1: Cav, Inf, Navy
Impulse 2: Cav, Inf, Navy
Impulse 3: Cav, Inf, Navy
Impulse 4: Cav, Inf, Navy
Impulse 5: Cav, Inf, Navy
Impulse 6: Cav, Inf, Navy
Impulse 7: Cav, Inf, Navy

Only french Inf. is allowed to move in 2 adjected Impulse, other nations may only do so if they use force marching. Its up to every player which impule he uses for his allowed movement points: Still 7 for ships, 5 for Cav and 3 for Land (France 4) plus one optinal Inf forcemarching. French Inf can move in 3 adjected Phases only by force marching.
The British navy always moves first, and if it enters an area with enemy ships these ships may not leave... (Perhapse anybody finds a better solution for getting the Brits a benefit like the French would get).

I think Impulse would be a good OPTION.

uli

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> The double move is an "artifact" of non-simul turn-based play, there's no need for it Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.719