Early September Update (Full Version)

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



Message

Monadman -> Early September Update (8/31/2007 2:56:28 PM)


EiANW is still in need of the following before release:
1. Upgraded AI: The program is currently under going Naval and Land AI rewrites.
2. More Scenarios: Currently, there is only the 1805 Grand Campaign.
3. Print Manual: Completed but currently waiting on the editor to review it.
4. Graphics: New victory and title screens
5. Music:

Current Testing Update:
Most of the recent bugs showing up are;
1. AI related
2. Deeply nested rule issues, that requires more man-hours to identify, fix and test (and there are NOT many testers working this project).
3. From breaking one function while attempting to fix something else (common reoccurring problem).

The long march continues . . .

Richard



Frank McNally -> RE: Early September Update (8/31/2007 6:45:05 PM)

Regarding point 2, this is especially probelematic if a game hits such a thing and cannot be manually forced to a specific game state. If the game originator has the power (perhaps with other players password protected aggreement) to assume godlike control and specify the location/strength of all pieces and the date, we won't find ourselves forced to abandon games in with 7 years into them becasue a nested rule created a situation the program cannot handle.



PDiFolco -> RE: Early September Update (8/31/2007 6:47:05 PM)

Ouch it looks like there's still a loooong way to go, I don't expect anymore a 2007 release...
But thx for the info !



PunkReaper -> RE: Early September Update (8/31/2007 10:58:32 PM)

Thanks for the update...sad but we will cope[:(]



StCyr -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 3:51:35 AM)

thank you for the update. Do you think there is a chance for some more beta testers to join you ? (of course I still would love to do so, but I doubt that Marshall is waiting for my help.)
Whenever I look at the Wold in Flames forum, I get the impersion that there is a tremendous input/help/feedback, perhapse similar support is possible for EiA.
I really wonder how the AI will look like, how to handle this by a single person- but perhapse you did some kind of brainstorming in the beta forum.



nukkxx5058 -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 11:01:34 AM)

That's rather bad news. I agree that it seems there is stil a long way to go ... :-(



hlj -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 12:26:45 PM)

Hey thanks for the update. I thought other scenarios would be added after the release. But the wait wont kill me.

What are the scenarios that are currently considered necesary for a release?



Monadman -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 3:52:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hlj

Hey thanks for the update. I thought other scenarios would be added after the release. But the wait wont kill me.

What are the scenarios that are currently considered necesary for a release?



There has been an effort by a couple of testers to make some of the original EiA scenarios but we need a working editor or all of Marshall’s attention to complete them, neither of which is available at this time. There is a “crude” editor that Marshall put together for his personal use but it needs significant attention (more code work) before anyone else can use it and he can not afford to give any time to it at the moment (for obvious reasons). Simply put, the scenario work is on the back burner while the AI gets worked.

I can guess where the course of conversation will go from here so I’ll ask this question in anticipation of the onslaught (but also out of curiosity): How much kicking and screaming would there be from those of you following this thread if EiANW was released without 1) ANY scenarios (allowing for post-release scenario distribution) or; 2) MANY scenarios (but still delaying game release to build them)?

For the record: it’s just my fingers on the keyboard, no decision has been made on this matter.

Richard



PunkReaper -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 5:46:47 PM)

IMO release now senarios to follow



Irish Guards -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 6:13:31 PM)

Is this for Real .... [sm=00000003.gif]
IG



sabre100 -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 7:41:49 PM)

IMO release the game with the one scenario you guys already have and then release the rest after the game.  This game has taken far to long to be released as is and now with the AI issue it can be another long wait then adding even longer wait on top of that for scenarios would delay this game into what year?? I am ok with the one scenario if made its release any sooner as long as other scenarios would be added down the road or an editor where released with a patch so users can add scenarios themselves also.

On the other hand keep up the good work, i personally appreciate the updates whether they are bad or good is is good knowing what is going on.



hlj -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 11:05:21 PM)

The Grand Campaign is the only important original scenario for me.

But you wont see any kicking and screaming from me wether we have to wait for more scenarios before a release or not. 



yammahoper -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 11:17:51 PM)

I prefer to wait for editor (which I honestly may never want).

yamma



WJPalmer1 -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 11:52:16 PM)

My vote is to release now with the single (grand campaign) scenario and follow with others later. This will satisfy the majority for a significant period during which other scenarios may be developed. In fact, this phasing approach could well drive additional interest and game sales as gamers' appetites are whetted. Just my $.02



eg0master -> RE: Early September Update (9/1/2007 11:56:35 PM)

I agree on releasing with only the grand campain. And forme AI is not important. I think the majority ofmy gameswillbe 7 human player games anyway.



jchastain -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 12:29:26 AM)

I suspect they aren't taking votes for what is or is not required for release.  And while most seem to be focusing on the scenarios, a "rewrite" of both the land and naval AI means the game isn't ready regardless of whether the additional scenarios are completed.  Since testers appear to be the driving force behind the new scenarios, parallelism isn't a bad plan IMO.  I do applaud the team for making tough calls to ensure the released product is at an acceptable quality level.  But, as others have already commented, it is clear that the game still has a ways to go.



yesman68 -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 12:31:04 AM)

I'd be happy with only the Grand Campaign scenario with the initial release.



dinsdale -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 6:29:04 AM)

Personally, I think it's an embarassment that Matrix have continued with this game. Christmas 2003 the game was in the pre-release pile on Gamespot until it was "postponed" and every year since then it's been "close."

This is about the 4th time we've been "really close" only to have dramatic silence then an apologetic post with a slew of issues crop up. The fact that there aren't many testers working on it is incredible. Who would think the management of the project could be as poorly organized as the development. All the more ironic IMHO as the call for testers went out in 2002, are any still alive from that phase?

No game these days ever works without numerous patches, I wonder how long the first patch is going to take to be delivered given the 6 years development and 5 years of really closeness to release.

I sincerely wish all those still planning to buy this game the best of luck. I have a feeling you might need it.



Camile Desmoulins -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 9:21:42 AM)

I'm according with you. Start with the Great Campaign, and more late will arrive others.
Is very important release as soon as possible


Camille



JodiSP -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 11:52:11 AM)

I also vote to release now with the single (grand campaign), but the AI must be fixed before release, scenarios can easily be added later but the AI could be difficult to improve upon with a patch[:(]



BoerWar -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 7:09:11 PM)

I would buy with only the Grand Campaign.



seaforth7 -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 9:38:06 PM)

I'd buy with only the Grand Campaign, be happy to wait for other scenarios to come out in future releases,





j-s -> RE: Early September Update (9/2/2007 10:08:35 PM)

Grand campaign and good AI will be more than great.
If more campaigns are needed, they could be added later (GC will be inaf to me [:)])



ZoomBoy27 -> RE: Early September Update (9/3/2007 12:52:25 AM)

Long time lurker since 2004.  Played EiA the board-game.

I am for releasing it with just the Major Scenario.  I assume we'd get the ability to play all countries and a functioning PBEM with AI opponents.  Plus the AI, as I had seen discussed in varying threads, is scripted to be varying.
I disagree with eg0master about the substituting AI not being needed.  The max I expect is 2 humans plus 5 AI opponents.

John Thomas



rz0slz -> RE: Early September Update (9/3/2007 1:58:51 AM)

only 1805 scenario.

continue to work on AI

But please complete the job asap....



malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Early September Update (9/3/2007 2:03:29 AM)

Release with one scenario.

Follow up with a Scenario editor and trust to the mod community to expand upon the basic game.




David Heath -> RE: Early September Update (9/3/2007 5:20:43 AM)

Hi Guys

I am due to talk with Marshall and I will get the full proper scoop for everyone.  Don't worry just as of yet.

David




jamo262 -> RE: Early September Update (9/4/2007 4:04:15 PM)

Leave senarios for later

I am with eg0master about the AI. But we could improve or just use the old uncontrolled major power (UMP) rules to play with just 2 0r 3 players. Monte Bohna offers some improvements to the UMP rules in the  'Empires in Arms' Yahoo groups website under the files section - MLB rules.

I understand that for some this sounds like a terrible idea. I appreciate that this may be true but then

1) all the 'programmers' out there could check on stuff like game balance, senario's and graphics (ie make mods)

whilst

2) the core team could focus on the AI.

We would still need a viable senario editor for this to work.

The big problem is the " deeply nested rules issues". These have been the bug bear of even the paper game and I have long suspected that might be the nemisis of this one.

Perhaps some compromise where the testing team is expanded might be in order. We would all promise to buy the game later. Honest.[:D]



Thresh -> RE: Early September Update (9/4/2007 4:21:19 PM)

If it's a matter of more playtesters, I know more than a few people (including me) willing to volunteer their time.

At this point I think the game has come to far to be canceled, but then I ain't the guy writing the checks....

YMMV,
Thresh




menik -> RE: Early September Update (9/5/2007 2:53:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monadman

without 1) ANY scenarios (allowing for post-release scenario distribution) or; 2) MANY scenarios (but still delaying game release to build them)?



1): without any scenarios



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125