RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (Full Version)

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



Message

moopere -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 5:24:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot
And as I pointed out, this isn't a transport issue -- it's a software architecture/design issue.


Amen. Folks who are not programmers need to really think hard about what they are asking for here.

Its fine for us all to have a nice conversation about fundamentally changing how the game actually works, but seriously guys, do we really expect the Matrix team to redesign the game now that its released? We have to keep a grip on whats possible and ask for stuff thats reasonable. Some stuff can be changed, some stuff can't be changed or won't be changed because the outcome won't be what is expected by the proponents of that change.

As I've said before, I don't personally care either way, direct tcpip, client server, classic PBEM....I'll use whatever is there, I'm just trying to get across that I think tinkering around the edges of the current PBEM system is a more achievable target. But heck, bother Marshall with whatever you like hehe.

Moopere



timewalker03 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 5:48:37 AM)

How about we look at this in a different way. If you are a person who would like to play over TCP/IP explain why that is your preference. If you like PBEM or consider it the best suited method for you to play then state why.

As far as adding opinion on why one is better than the other is very counter productive in either capacity. PBEM right now is the only Multi Player choice at this time. TCP/IP could be implemented in the future and would be the preferred method for some people. It will have the same problems that PBEM have with players playing then leaving without a word stated or with a sorry guys can't play anymore. That is human nature.

I have actually 9 friends who I know could keep a schedule and be online at a scheduled time and play 3-4 hours a week. We have already come up with our rules for the group.

The first major rule would be that we would use a voice server such as Ventrilo or Teamspeak and be on voice comm during every active session. The server would be set up so that there would be a main channel for all players and one channel for each Major power for people to conduct diplomacy.

The Second rule is that diplomacy will be conducted real time and can be done while waiting for player turn completion. This will cut down on wasted time waiting for people to lay out their plans. Also the voice server runs 24/7 so people could even be on when we are not playing and constructing major plans at that time.

The 3rd Major rule and may be the most important is that we will keep all turns to 5 minutes or less. That gives for 12 player turns/hour and 24-36 in a two or three hour session. In a 3 hour session that would be 5 months in peace time. During war the time limit is changed to 10 minutes for those at war and 5 for those not at war.

The 4th Rule is that if a person becomes unavailable for any time they will either pass their game off to someone else or send turns via email for the Host/moderator to conduct. I have 2 computers and could use the second as a proxy computer for those who are unavailable for a session.

The key to success of a live game will be no different than any FtF game ever played. If you create a fun dynamic for play ie. voice server or MSN messenger or AOL IM as a real time communication then the speed of the game will move along without too much problem. If you play a pickup game with strangers you could still use the same dynamics since a voice server can be used by anyone with the voice client software which is free and the address for the server. Or using a live chat feature as stated above, and creat some game rules for your group, then success could still be had even when human nature interferes.

Just some examples of how you can be successful. And yes for those who view everything from a glass half empty or totally empty point of view, there will always be unforeseen things that come up. The best advice for that is deal with those things and move on. TCP/IP will work, but it won't be for everyone. Also if your argument is that you live in Europe and the players are from the USA or the other way around, then don't join that gaming group or stick with PBEM. Life isn't perfect, but this is a great feature the game could have for those who will use it.



cato13 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 12:29:17 PM)

i dunno how your workin out 12 turns/per hour. if u were involved in a 7 player game u would take your turn, then have to wait 6X5=30 minutes till it was your turn again. double that time if u were at war!

if the game had been designed with a wego turn system then there would be no waiting for turns, but it isnt. im no designer but id reckon it would take a fair bit of work to change the turn system and i just dont see matrix doin that.






zaquex -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 1:28:57 PM)

I think he means 12 player phases which is perfectly doable in direct play, for instance prussia naval phase usually take about 10 secs...



fvianello -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 3:10:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moopere

Amen. Folks who are not programmers need to really think hard about what they are asking for here.



Ditto.



fvianello -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 3:13:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tonedog
i dunno how your workin out 12 turns/per hour. if u were involved in a 7 player game u would take your turn, then have to wait 6X5=30 minutes till it was your turn again. double that time if u were at war!


Yep, 12 turns per hour is simply nonsense in any condition.



timewalker03 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 5:34:22 PM)

here I will spell it out for you. Each "Phase" will be spelled out for you. Other than the land phase each phase can be figured out before you ever take your turn each month using the time during 6 other players turn.

Setup Phase: Happens only once in the game at the beginning and can be done prior to game start and loaded in. The game has such a nice feature of saving setups and loading them at a later time.

Diplomacy phase: Can and should be done during other players turns and can be ongoing throughout. Making in game diplomacy settings should take less than 30 seconds at that time since it's just checking boxes or unchecking boxes. minimal time.

Reinforcement phase: well it doesn't take much to figure out where your troops will be placed and can be figured out during other players turns so when you need to place them it will take minimal time to point and click them into place.

Naval Phase/Naval Combat Phase: well this actually comes down to GB strategy. Once the French fleet is gone, GB should and most likely will pick of all other fleets making them the only naval power in the game. When the British fleet is the only one left the naval phase is short as really only one player will be dealing it. The only way this changes is if the French player influences Russia and Spain to to help take GB down a bit and that is a tough sell for some. Once navies are gone naval combat is minimal.

Land Phase/Land Combat Phase: unless there is a war going on is a minimal time eater since most movement is dealing with minor moves or splitting armies into high forage countries. During a major war, this becomes the most time consuming phase since some moves will need to be reactions to other player movements/ Although if you have a plan before this phase, then it becomes much easier to change your initial plans. Also in the beginning land phase may be slower because of the minor country land grabs going on, but most will be trivial combats since no major country wants to lose Political points to senseless corps battles.

Economic Phase:Because this step is done by a computer for calculations, this step has been simplified by a lot. This step comes every three months. If you know your money and manpower totals which the game keeps track of in the upper right hand corner of the game, then doing your reinforcement purchases will be easy for all because as with most things you can figure it out while another player is taking his turn and implement it with little time cost when your turn comes around.If you have Free States, the same applies and your Builds can be figured out before hand with minimal time cost. Since Political points are figured by the computer the PP collection is instantaneous during this phase and can be looked at at anytime.

So lets take a look at time now. If you are playing the game with any form of communication software Diplomacy can be an ongoing feature as the people are taking their phase turns.

Since Setup phase occurs once It is not considered in the turn total other than on the first turn

Diplomatic phase= less than one minute to click boxes necessary. Will give 1 minute/person though for argument sake.

Naval Phase: Not rocket science here and will take minimal time if pre planned and less time once GB has naval dominance. If there are battles then this falls under war time and more time is given. Austria and Prussia don't have navies so 0 time for them. 1 minute/person.

Reinforcement step: Does not come every month and placing reinforcements if planned before hand is just clicking the corps and the reinforcement box the using the rocker button to add. 1 minute/person.

Land phase: when the world is not at war which is a good amount of time the land phase is minimal and with proper planning no more than 2 minutes once the minor grab is complete. During war this is increased and is the most time consuming portion of the game. In winter there is very little movement which speeds everything up even more.

Last night I played a 7 person hot seat game with myself playing all 7 countries. I was able to play 5 months worth of turns in 1 hour 2 minutes and 54 seconds for all 7 countries. I pre planned most simulating a player planning while others take turns. I did not pre plan the Economic interphase portion of the game and did the builds on the fly. I did not have to deal with reinforcements during this time so add a few minutes for reinforcements coming in in month 6. So 63 minutes for 7 players to make 5 months of peactime turns. That is a good average and the game makes it much easier than it used to be doing turns since pen and paper are no longer involved which ate up a lot of time.





timewalker03 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 5:44:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tonedog

i dunno how your workin out 12 turns/per hour. if u were involved in a 7 player game u would take your turn, then have to wait 6X5=30 minutes till it was your turn again. double that time if u were at war!

if the game had been designed with a wego turn system then there would be no waiting for turns, but it isnt. im no designer but id reckon it would take a fair bit of work to change the turn system and i just dont see matrix doin that.





One thing about the wego system is you create that yourself by planning your game while others are taking their turn. Unless you are an idiot or stubborn, all your planning can be done while others are taking their turns. Once you have planned it out it is just a point and click game. If you insist on waiting till everyone else has gone then yes it will be an unbelievably slow game and that makes this form of multi player play not for that person. This game as in the board game takes time to plan. Before you ever came to the table in a face to face game a good player would have his strategies planned and maybe some contingencies if things turned sour. This game on computer is much easier than a pen and paper game. If you enhance the game by adding communication software of any kind it make the game even easier and that much more fun.



fvianello -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 6:16:46 PM)

Please, spare us.



cato13 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 7:49:44 PM)

what would u liked spared hanca?[&:] its gettin a bit annoyin sein u constantly postin negative things about tcp! if its not for u then fine, why do u keep postin in this thread?




NeverMan -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 8:17:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moopere

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
TCP/IP is faster, period. You are trying to argue that an email conversation is faster than live chat and you are wrong, sorry.


Live chat? I thought we were talking about an IGOUGO gaming system? I assume that you -do- realise email is sent over tcp/ip as its transport protocol?



Yes, I understand the both the current Internet model and the OSI model. I am also quite aware of Amdahl's Law (for the other guy).

YOU were the one that pointed out that TCP/IP connections can get lost and you used that as an argument against TCP/IP play, so I guess you are correcting yourself, thank you.

The "live chat" vs. "email" was just an analogy, sorry if you didn't understand that. TCP/IP is essentially the same as FTF, and FTF is faster than PBEM.

I simply don't understand:
1) how you people cannot see that
2) why so many pro-PBEMs are so anti-TCP/IP (why is the world so bi-everything?) There can be both you know.



NeverMan -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 8:20:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tonedog

what would u liked spared hanca?[&:] its gettin a bit annoyin sein u constantly postin negative things about tcp! if its not for u then fine, why do u keep postin in this thread?




Because for some reason he thinks he is the end all be all of CEiA knowledge. I have no clue as to why.

For the "programmers" part, I think there are a lot more "programmers" here than you think.



fvianello -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 8:48:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tonedog
what would u liked spared hanca?[&:] its gettin a bit annoyin sein u constantly postin negative things about tcp! if its not for u then fine, why do u keep postin in this thread?


Actually, I cannot tell you why I bother to post in this thread. If I do, the funny part of it would be gone. But you're a bunch of smart guys, so you'll probably get it sooner or later....

But back to our discussion! I understand that someone is playing all the 7 major powers alone, with a clock in his hand to get the time of the moves, to show to the poor, obscurantist souls here that it's possible to play 12 turns (turns, not phases) in 1 hour.

quote:


Last night I played a 7 person hot seat game with myself playing all 7 countries. I was able to play 5 months worth of turns in 1 hour 2 minutes and 54 seconds for all 7 countries.


Now, that's really interesting. It's the "54 seconds" part of the phrase that I found particularly disturbing.



timewalker03 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 9:16:20 PM)

well HanBarca when you use a stop watch it gives you hours minutes and seconds. OK for your sake I will round it up. 1 hour and 3 minutes.



Grognot -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 9:30:39 PM)

Unless you have a severe case of multiple personality disorder, or you normally play with careless abandon -- trusting what others actually say, not looking for double-moves and potential alliances and backstabs, not considering the import of what others actually did -- playing yourself isn't a very good barometer.

The fact that it's considered an advantage of France and GB to be able to choose their move orders in the land and naval phases should be a pretty good tip-off that the order matters, and that it's worth spending some time considering what others have done and will do.



zaquex -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 9:52:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognot

Unless you have a severe case of multiple personality disorder, or you normally play with careless abandon -- trusting what others actually say, not looking for double-moves and potential alliances and backstabs, not considering the import of what others actually did -- playing yourself isn't a very good barometer.

The fact that it's considered an advantage of France and GB to be able to choose their move orders in the land and naval phases should be a pretty good tip-off that the order matters, and that it's worth spending some time considering what others have done and will do.



And in that sense a client/server direct play game over tcp/ip is much more like a ftf game you should be able to watch corpmovements done in realtime if online during someone elses turn if thats how you want it.



timewalker03 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/10/2008 9:55:07 PM)

A good player will do that, but it does not an especially long time to sit back and analyze what other do when you see it unfold before your eyes. TCP/IP play as in FtF is realtime. So if someone moves you can see it and analyze it just as if you were next to them in a chair.

In many games I have played FtF I have watched people spend 20 minutes analyzing the situation and make the dumbest possible move you can. I have seen people make awesome impulse moves also. Like in chess you can stare at the pieces on the board and not have a clue what you are doing or play by tact and feeling. Time in Eia is irrelevant when it comes to people making moves. Some are fast and good, some are fast and bad. Some are slow and good, some are slow and bad. The game does take some forethought, but most can be done while waiting for a turn.

My example is not to prove anything more than you can play the game quickly even in a 7 player game. If you have a session of playing for 1 hour you may do 3 months or one month or just like talking to your friends and hanging out. However it goes will be up to the group. TCP/IP will be a very doable feature, and if you don't like to play that way then it's a choice you would have. Just right now there is no other choice available other than PBEM. I am not a fan of PBEM, but I am helping Jimmer with the turoial via PBEM anyway. I am going to give it a chance. My preferred method though will always be realtime.



AresMars -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 1:18:10 AM)

TCP/IP or PBEM - anyway you that cut it - this game takes time to play.....It is very unlikely that the time required will ever be reduced in a significant way.

As timeralker03 pointed out, an EiA games includes all types of players, who play at different speeds.  So, the time it takes is the time it takes.

I play to enjoy myself and the 'time' spent is just part of that...... the math of it and this tread is proof that gamers have the time to waste!  Even if measured in seconds.....








zaquex -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 2:23:21 AM)

1. A direct play game is much closer to a FtF game, it has potential to move faster than a PBEM game. It also provide means to deal with most simple cheats and it opens up for possibilities of a more interactive game. It would be potentially be less sterile than a PBEM game and there is possibly psychological effects that may make the players more engaged and therefore more likely not only to move fast but also to stay in the game. All of the above is however subject to how its implemented.

2. A PBEM game is not that bad but has few advantages compared to the direct play client server solution. The only clear advantage I can see is that you dont need a machine dedicated to run the game that needs to be online close to 24/7 for the game to be garanteed to run smothly. The PBEM features that are currently implemented in EiA is very basic, it would be possible to to add a mailserver program and automatize most of the today rather tedious administrative tasks that comes with performing your EiA PBEM phase today. At least to me it seems silly that you today risk to spend as much or more time on these menial tasks than you actually do playing the game, and this is my principal reason why I dont like the PBEM feature today.

I would much appretiate a client/server direct play solution for EiANW because i beleive it would greatly improve game play, I do not however have enough technical information about the internals of the game to know how feasable this would be. With the limited knowledge the exterior of the program gives, it hints that it should be possible with mainly external addons. There is however always other things that needs to be taken under concideration like solving the current bugs, improving the AI etc. that might need to be given priority. Any decision needs to be weighted by how much it improves the game in relation to how much time such improvement would be expected to take and compared to other possible solutions, only Marshall and Matrix can do this.

It is very possible that the cost effectivness, in regards to time to develop and improved game play, of direct play at this moment is inferior to improving the PBEM solution. But to say that direct play would not improve the game is in my oppinion very ignorant.



Regards

zaq




moopere -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 2:54:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: moopere

Live chat? I thought we were talking about an IGOUGO gaming system? I assume that you -do- realise email is sent over tcp/ip as its transport protocol?



Yes, I understand the both the current Internet model and the OSI model. I am also quite aware of Amdahl's Law (for the other guy).

YOU were the one that pointed out that TCP/IP connections can get lost and you used that as an argument against TCP/IP play, so I guess you are correcting yourself, thank you.


Oh for goodness sakes. That was me outlaying a corner case issue with direct tcp/ip in response to an assertion (by someone) that emails get lost and/or can take a long time. If you'd read what I was saying you'd have known that both are corner cases and should not be used as arguments for or against.


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
The "live chat" vs. "email" was just an analogy, sorry if you didn't understand that. TCP/IP is essentially the same as FTF, and FTF is faster than PBEM.

I simply don't understand:
1) how you people cannot see that


Because some of us are professional programmers?


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
2) why so many pro-PBEMs are so anti-TCP/IP (why is the world so bi-everything?) There can be both you know.


Because programmers are pestered all day and night by end-users (such as the pro tcp/ip lobby here) who throw wild suggestions out into the world with justifications of "why not"....the why not in this case being that the end result will be almost no different to the model already presented and the amount of work required to prove this is extraordinary (huge!).

But look, you have now worked yourself up into a hysterical state over this. I've got no personal agenda here so I think I'll let it go at this point. If the pro tcpip lobby gets their way it won't be a bad thing for the PBEMers, just an additional thing, which is all good.

Cheers,
Moopere.






timewalker03 -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 9:00:08 AM)

Moopere noone is in an hysterical state about this. There are those of us who would love this featureinstead of PBEM. I have 9 friends who would rather play the game real time over PBEM. 7 of them have not bought the game because of this but would if TCP/IP were offered. Also those 7 don't troll these forums. We play other games online together as a group and they contend to stick with other games till this feature is launched or they will stay satisfied with what they are doing. For us it is no problem getting together online two to three times/week to play games and we are informed if one is going to be gone for extended periods of time. Like I have stated many times now TCP/IP is a great fit for our group, but PBEM is not. In the early 90's we played EiA via Snail Mail and had a good time with it and in the late 90's played by email. We typed out our turns and sent them to the moderator for play and we had fun at the time. Now with todays technology something better for us is out there and our group would use it if available. PBEM to most of them is an archaic form of game play. We were doing that in the 90's and now 10 years later we would still be doing the same thing. If it is not implemented then it is too bad for us, but if it could be then it should be. I see the resistance to it even though is not the most rational and I really have no idea why anyone would oppose it. The "Programmers" seem to think it will add SO much time in the development of a game that is already released. I keep seeing people say they don't care yet they argue pretty hard against it. If people want it shouldn't it be offered. Just Like PBEM. People wanted it and got it. I have patience and as Marshall told me there are some issues more pressing and I agree. For this to be implemented all it would take is for many in the community to ask for it and those who don't care to either support it or stay out of it. For those who oppose it there must be some deep seeded fear of it or maybe they just like to be bullish and go against the grain. Either way is rediculous. TCP/IP will be good for some and maybe not others.



NeverMan -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 4:57:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moopere


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: moopere

Live chat? I thought we were talking about an IGOUGO gaming system? I assume that you -do- realise email is sent over tcp/ip as its transport protocol?



Yes, I understand the both the current Internet model and the OSI model. I am also quite aware of Amdahl's Law (for the other guy).

YOU were the one that pointed out that TCP/IP connections can get lost and you used that as an argument against TCP/IP play, so I guess you are correcting yourself, thank you.


Oh for goodness sakes. That was me outlaying a corner case issue with direct tcp/ip in response to an assertion (by someone) that emails get lost and/or can take a long time. If you'd read what I was saying you'd have known that both are corner cases and should not be used as arguments for or against.


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
The "live chat" vs. "email" was just an analogy, sorry if you didn't understand that. TCP/IP is essentially the same as FTF, and FTF is faster than PBEM.

I simply don't understand:
1) how you people cannot see that


Because some of us are professional programmers?


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
2) why so many pro-PBEMs are so anti-TCP/IP (why is the world so bi-everything?) There can be both you know.


Because programmers are pestered all day and night by end-users (such as the pro tcp/ip lobby here) who throw wild suggestions out into the world with justifications of "why not"....the why not in this case being that the end result will be almost no different to the model already presented and the amount of work required to prove this is extraordinary (huge!).

But look, you have now worked yourself up into a hysterical state over this. I've got no personal agenda here so I think I'll let it go at this point. If the pro tcpip lobby gets their way it won't be a bad thing for the PBEMers, just an additional thing, which is all good.

Cheers,
Moopere.



Hysterical state? LOL. No, I'm just stating the logical. I have little emotion wrapped up in the TCP/IP slash PBEM argument, it's just that to me it doesn't make sense not to have TCP/IP.

And when I said "programmers" I meant, yes, us professional programmers. I believe that there are quite a few here (and in the world nowadays I might add).

IMO, good programmers (software engineers) listen to "pesky end users" and don't have a negative attitude about it. If you aren't writing code for an end user as a professional programmer, then who are you writing code for?



fvianello -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 5:14:18 PM)

I don't know how many professional programmers we have here.
What I know is that I am a professional programmer and anyone saying that an online TCP/IP game mode (or even worse, a client/server game mode) could be implemented "easily" starting from the present EiA is talking nonsense [8|].

Please note the keyword "easily" before starting a two page post to show us that it can be done. I already know it can be done, the point is the effort required.

But I'm only repeating what Marshall Ellis told you all, apparently to no avail.

And btw, the answer to the question "are you and a couple more here getting hysterical?" is definitely "yes".




PBI -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 5:41:40 PM)

TCP/IP should have been supported from the start.  Not instead of PBEM or hotseat, but alongside the two.  As this thread proves, there are almost as many preferences for type of multiplayer as there are players.



NeverMan -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/11/2008 6:10:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

I don't know how many professional programmers we have here.
What I know is that I am a professional programmer and anyone saying that an online TCP/IP game mode (or even worse, a client/server game mode) could be implemented "easily" starting from the present EiA is talking nonsense [8|].

Please note the keyword "easily" before starting a two page post to show us that it can be done. I already know it can be done, the point is the effort required.

But I'm only repeating what Marshall Ellis told you all, apparently to no avail.

And btw, the answer to the question "are you and a couple more here getting hysterical?" is definitely "yes".




Han, no one is "getting hysterical", that's just silly drama talk.

I agree that it might not be "easy" but I don't think it would be "terribly difficult" either.

If Marshall has decided not to implement TCP/IP then that's fine. I guess I didn't get, or see, that post.



baboune -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/12/2008 12:09:16 AM)

Funny you say that han, if PBEM is in place a client/server approach is doable and should not be so much work. After all it is just about redirecting emails from one socket to another. It would at least simplify the file management bits.

Now if we are talking about simultaneous move, that might be more complicated. However it might be interesting to play and could speed up the game.

Finally, if we are looking at a full MP game (kinda of a FtF over TCP/IP) then yes I agree with you the cost is high.

Is this game playable with 7 human players today? The answer is no. People will not be able to play a full game over 2 years.



fvianello -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/12/2008 12:22:31 AM)

quote:


Is this game playable with 7 human players today? The answer is no. People will not be able to play a full game over 2 years.

Why no? I'm playing with 7 players in 3 PBEM games.
A real, paranoid, wargamer is not scared by the idea of a 2 years game (or even 4...); I've played several 2 years game FtF (The Next War or World in Flames for example).

We'll probably never finish it, but who cares ? I'm having fun :)

I'll forego your comments about the client/server except for 1 thing: client / server architecture requires two completely different executables, you know ?



Murat -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/12/2008 12:45:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: baboune

Funny you say that han, if PBEM is in place a client/server approach is doable and should not be so much work. After all it is just about redirecting emails from one socket to another. It would at least simplify the file management bits.


I love these people who always talk about how this can be done easily. Talk is cheap. If it is so easy, program it and send it on to Marshall.



baboune -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/12/2008 12:55:39 AM)

That would be no problem.. Let's just ask Marshall to make the code open source.  It would be great!



NeverMan -> RE: Is TCP/IP Supported? (2/12/2008 5:42:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: baboune

That would be no problem.. Let's just ask Marshall to make the code open source.  It would be great!


LOL, yeah, I'm sure Matrix is more than willing to do that. LOL!!!

Seriously though, how awesome would that be? Answer: Pretty Awesome!!

I think Han hit the nail on the head as far as the playability of this PBEM game: who cares if you finish as long as you are having fun! That said, it's still a little depressing to realize that you are going to start a game you probably won't finish, or at least not with the same people you started it with.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125