RE: Bug and Suggestions (a start)

RE: Bug and Suggestions (a start) (Full Version)

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

Message

nappy -> RE: Bug and Suggestions (a start) (12/15/2007 10:37:02 PM)
Yeah naval battles, as I mentioned are not giving any info at all to anyone and completely lacking in some situations like blockade resolutions. Question: Under EIA wasnt there an option for a pursuit of the phasing fleet to blockade the defeated enemy to the port of retreat - this doesnt seem to be in the game. Naps

fvianello -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/16/2007 2:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Micke II I completly agree with Nappy. The same issue concerning lack of information or improvement of the screens for the existing information has also been adressed in another thread with the same arguments. See: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1645850 What I am expecting from this game is 1/ historicity: when somebody is saying than "only the 2 players must know the results of a battle" it's ridiculous. Spys, diplomats, observers, common people talking to each others, travellers was able between 1805 and 1815 to dispatch with accuracy news concerning big european events such as a big battle. You have just to read some historical books and documents to learn that. Your spies are yourself (the player) asking your allies (or the allies of your allies) details about the battle. If you don't have anyone to gather informations from, too bad for you. quote: 2/playability and fun: I cannot agree when I read: "to find information you have to dig it out and must make an effort to find it" It's a game and a hobby, it's not a job. If its appears I have to work hard to play this game I would change immediately for something more friendly. That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste.

fvianello -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/16/2007 2:37:54 PM)
quote: I'd just like to point out that even the participants aren't getting full disclosure. I'm BR and Nelson just got attacked and lost at sea and all I know is this: Well, THIS is a problem to deal with. GB should definitely have all the details about the Nelson's lost naval battle.

DodgyDave -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/16/2007 3:04:34 PM)
HanBarca, where does it say in the normal boardgame rules that the battles are a secret? the point being from some is, they dont just want a boring game, they want the option of playing it as they want, so let them suggest things they would like, its up to the programmers and owners of the game, to decide if its possible and its worth adding. to me, it seems the best for this game, is they keep adding new options, because this is what will give more people a reason to buy the game, as they want to play the game as they once did around the table.

nappy -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/16/2007 5:06:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste. HARD means difficult, as in strong opponent(s) and finding yourself on the edge of your seat trying to fight your way to a win. HARD is not tediously or monotomously trying to find information that should logically be a tad more self evident. By your definition HARD would be removing indexes and chapter divisions from non-fiction books, and saying that if you cant find the information within it easily is because that book is supposed to be a difficult topic. To each their own, some Info/UI options would be nice for some, not for others, this is the way of all software. [:)] You are right about taste, but why should anyone taste be any more predminant than anyone else's - as many of us agree - it world be workable as OPTIONs so we can enjoy the game as we feel best represents its true spirit of teh game tp both the new player to the EiA Grognard. Naps

Jestre -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/16/2007 10:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste. No it isnt a matter of "HARD" it's a matter of content. Many of us, I believe most of us prefer a game the gives us more of an immersiveness in the subject matter and feel cheated if we get mostly just vague hints and incomplete data of not only minor events but also major events. It's not too much to ask for the game to offer options for both type of players.... I am guessing that the vast majority of wargamers would choose to have more information made available. I would also guess that the current "FOW" as implemented will cause for a much shorter game life for most purchasers of the game. As for myself I have no inclination to buy the game until it does offer an option for more disclosure and I would imagine that I am not alone.

Thresh -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 4:00:07 AM)
so you insist on a 'god's eye view' and knowledge of all the wargames you play. interesting... todd quote: ORIGINAL: Jestre quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca That bring us back to the original answer from Murat. This game is HARD. It's supposed to be HARD. If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste. No it isnt a matter of "HARD" it's a matter of content. Many of us, I believe most of us prefer a game the gives us more of an immersiveness in the subject matter and feel cheated if we get mostly just vague hints and incomplete data of not only minor events but also major events. It's not too much to ask for the game to offer options for both type of players.... I am guessing that the vast majority of wargamers would choose to have more information made available. I would also guess that the current "FOW" as implemented will cause for a much shorter game life for most purchasers of the game. As for myself I have no inclination to buy the game until it does offer an option for more disclosure and I would imagine that I am not alone.

nappy -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 4:14:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh so you insist on a 'god's eye view' and knowledge of all the wargames you play. interesting... todd I dont think anyone is asking for a perfect God's eye view (although most PC and board games do have this anyways). I think most people are asking for more accesible info in the manner which they are used to in the FtoF version and that makes sense in the UI (summries). For example in EiA the number of corps at every point on the map was always visible so you knew when a battle was fought, commanded by whom, and specifically where - not nitty gritty details for third party battles. The big critique is the game doesnt do that well enough, it is more minimalist than the original game. Naps

Thresh -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 6:01:41 AM)
depends on the settings your using, and how much attention you pay to the map. if you leave ai moves on, it's a bit easy to track the movement of other corps. vsvi usually take a few minutes after i see a big battle result to see where it occurred, and from there its pretty easy to figure out who fought whom and where, and how many corps were involved. factors is a different matter, truth be told i am not sure the computer builds anything but militia after awhile... todd quote: ORIGINAL: nappy quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh so you insist on a 'god's eye view' and knowledge of all the wargames you play. interesting... todd I dont think anyone is asking for a perfect God's eye view (although most PC and board games do have this anyways). I think most people are asking for more accesible info in the manner which they are used to in the FtoF version and that makes sense in the UI (summries). For example in EiA the number of corps at every point on the map was always visible so you knew when a battle was fought, commanded by whom, and specifically where - not nitty gritty details for third party battles. The big critique is the game doesnt do that well enough, it is more minimalist than the original game. Naps

Jestre -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 6:10:12 AM)
I find it interesting that those of us that want more detail in the presentation of game information want it as a customizable choice that would not deter those that like the game as is to have to sacrifice their preferred way of playing. On the other hand those that like the way the game as it is don't even want the option presented to those that disagree with their preference.... seems pretty selfish and petty to me....

Thresh -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 6:19:35 AM)
question is, how many people who want these changes would be willing to play without them in a pbem or tcp/ip game. i would not mind some more details from time to time, but do i want them because it makes the game easier, or the game better. frankly if the game gave me as much detail as i'd get in a ftf game i'd happy, but apparently thats not enough for some people either... todd

Murat -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 7:38:06 AM)
[1] I said options are OK. [2] Information that some people claim is unavailable is available, they are just too lazy to look for it or even ask anyone else where it is. [3] People are requesting information that the board game did not provide. In a solo game if you want to remove FoW feel free, I just will not be doing so in my PBEMs. [4] If anythng will shorten the life of this game for a purchaser it will be having all the information readily available since it turns into what I previously pointed out was fancy Diplomacy. If you want an uncomplicated game that doesn't require thinking, that's the one to get.

Cossaky -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 8:25:23 AM)
Having enjoyed EiA for years, we never asked other players to leave the room while two opponents conducted a battle. I can't imagine a more sterile way to experience the game than to be deprived of a front seat as Napoleon takes Mack out to the woodshed. Or to sequester oneself in the livingroom while Waterloo unfolds in the basement. The FoW element in EiA is that you can't pick up and examine an opponent's corps, you can't tell what reinforcements a corps receives, or which corps moves where following a battle. We would routinely jot down total force strengths at the outset of battles and chalk it up to spies, eye-witnesses, allies sharing information, and plain old word of mouth. More to the point, players are required to reveal their force strength at the moment tactics are revealed and no where does it direct non-phasing players to leave the room.

Thresh -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 8:48:40 AM)
i agree with your POV here cosscky. quote: ORIGINAL: Cossaky The FoW element in EiA is that you can't pick up and examine an opponent's corps, you can't tell what reinforcements a corps receives, or which corps moves where following a battle. which is what happens in the game now... quote: We would routinely jot down total force strengths at the outset of battles and chalk it up to spies, eye-witnesses, allies sharing information, and plain old word of mouth. if the game were to say something to the effect of 'france with 6 corps, 10a, 127i, 17c and napoleon and murat beat charles with 8 corps, 75i, 10g and 13c' things would be ok, in fact i think this would be a good thing and add a bit more of the game to it. quote: More to the point, players are required to reveal their force strength at the moment tactics are revealed and no where does it direct non-phasing players to leave the room. well, if you want to quibble, nowhere does it direct them to stay either. that said, theres only so much of the board game you can port into the computer game without making drastic changes. while the current setup is ok, it could be better, but it could also go to far. todd

nappy -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 4:44:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jestre I find it interesting that those of us that want more detail in the presentation of game information want it as a customizable choice that would not deter those that like the game as is to have to sacrifice their preferred way of playing. On the other hand those that like the way the game as it is don't even want the option presented to those that disagree with their preference.... seems pretty selfish and petty to me.... I can respect you opinion Jestre, but please dont subscribe to name calling, like selfish and petty, and asumming certain player motivations where none exist. You're not going to get folks to see your point of view by taking an elitist stance that those who want the information better presented as unworthy playing "your game." I realize I can't change your mind, but is it really worth it for the game we love to present the community as a fight between hostile groups unwilling to accept a few cosmetic optional changes, in favour of making the game more accesible. EiA has been played in basements, kitchen tables and rec rooms world wide, with multitude of house rules and interpretations. They may not be yours, but they are a still valid. For myself, I'd much prefer the immersive factor of getting a bit more colour detail. I want by FtoF experience as much as you want your style, but our milages may vary. Murat - I disagree , nothing shortens a game's life more than a feeling of frustration and a sense of assumed poor quality. I bet some would get so frustrated they'd stop playing. You may think Fog of war, but there wil be many who would think that was sloppy game design. I have seen many good games get panned and passed on by many simply because of UI presentation issues. The GAME did provide the information, it was just your choice on now you deal with it. In your words the information is there; most of us are just aking for a little presentation polish, not the Coles Notes to EiA. Naps

Jestre -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 5:35:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nappy I can respect you opinion Jestre, but please dont subscribe to name calling, like selfish and petty, and asumming certain player motivations where none exist. I'm not name calling, merely describing behavior as I see it. Just making an observation... and trying to make a point, that there is no reason why a game cannot be appealing on different levels to people with different expectations. Actually I believe the elitist viewpoint comes from these kinds of statements "I have said it twice in the last few minutes: this game punishes the lazy, it always has and it always should." and "If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste." These kinds of statements are offensive to me and unnecessary. I play entirely solitaire vs the AI, I have no interest in pbm and my major consideration after gameplay is historical immersion. I don't need anyone calling me lazy or obtuse simply because I have different expectations and considerations from my wargames.

nappy -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 5:45:29 PM)
Double post sorry.

nappy -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 5:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jestre I play entirely solitaire vs the AI, I have no interest in pbm and my major consideration after gameplay is historical immersion. I don't need anyone calling me lazy or obtuse simply because I have different expectations and considerations from my wargames. Which is exactly my point as well and I agree with your points actually. I just dont want the topic to degenerate one group calling others lazy and another calling folks selfish. I think we all want the game to move forward as best as it can supporting whatever Marshal determines is the best for it. [:)] Naps

Mynok -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 6:00:17 PM)
quote: "I have said it twice in the last few minutes: this game punishes the lazy, it always has and it always should." and "If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste." These kinds of statements are offensive to me and unnecessary. I play entirely solitaire vs the AI, I have no interest in pbm and my major consideration after gameplay is historical immersion. I don't need anyone calling me lazy or obtuse simply because I have different expectations and considerations from my wargames. Seems to me you are taking umbrage at something that isn't directed at you necessarily.

Micke II -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 6:06:05 PM)
In this endless discussion there are 2 schools: - the school which thinks everything is perfect and there is nothing to change in this game because you must be "able to dig the information if you want to become a good player". - the second school thinks the information is here but presented in old fashioned way and asks for tools in order to make this game less arid and more enjoyable. The risk, if this game stays like that, is it will become a simulation for a small number of initiates and discourage a large numbers of players who are not apppreciating already the "old fashioned" interface. Either the game improves in its look, or it stays confidential. I am also playing very much WIP. In WIP FOW is crucial. There are despite FOW, results appearing on the screen , not completly accurate in term of informations, showing what is happening. You have also a file with the information that you can read at the end of each turn. People can switch off the information screens to their choice and read only the file. Personnaly what I would like see, at the end of each phase, is a screen with the main events: - treaties, DOW, take on control of minor countries, breach of alliances, - big battles: winner/loser casualties with a accuracy to be defined -Gain or loses in political points. A scroll with a adjustable speed to follow what is happening will be also appreciated.

nappy -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 6:14:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok quote: "I have said it twice in the last few minutes: this game punishes the lazy, it always has and it always should." and "If you prefer games where you don't have to work hard, it's not a problem but don't ask to simplify this one to suit your taste." These kinds of statements are offensive to me and unnecessary. I play entirely solitaire vs the AI, I have no interest in pbm and my major consideration after gameplay is historical immersion. I don't need anyone calling me lazy or obtuse simply because I have different expectations and considerations from my wargames. Seems to me you are taking umbrage at something that isn't directed at you necessarily. Yes, but the original quote was a bit harsh and undiplomatic though and perhaps could be read as pointed towards those suggesting changes. It seems funny to say that one shouldnt change the game to satisfy one's own needs when in turn that satisfies a someone else's need. We dont need this kind of acrimony but find a solution that works. I can see the point in keeping SOME fog of war (actual Corps names, original forces/compositions, morales etc). However, I would like to see more info about diplo events, battle locations, leaders, total corps, fleets and chits, perhaps casualties (debatable if numbers or a perhaps verbal descriptor such as "Bloody, High, Equal, or Low") in an end turn summary form would be nice, such as the text I suggested in an earlier above post. Naps

James Ward -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 6:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cossaky Having enjoyed EiA for years, we never asked other players to leave the room while two opponents conducted a battle. I can't imagine a more sterile way to experience the game than to be deprived of a front seat as Napoleon takes Mack out to the woodshed. Or to sequester oneself in the livingroom while Waterloo unfolds in the basement. The FoW element in EiA is that you can't pick up and examine an opponent's corps, you can't tell what reinforcements a corps receives, or which corps moves where following a battle. We would routinely jot down total force strengths at the outset of battles and chalk it up to spies, eye-witnesses, allies sharing information, and plain old word of mouth. More to the point, players are required to reveal their force strength at the moment tactics are revealed and no where does it direct non-phasing players to leave the room. The battles MADE the game. Everyone would watch to see if the players tended to pick the same chit, whether they would commit the guard early and just for the hell of it. We even had a system where one non-involved player acted as the umpire and totalled the strengths, looked at the chits, read the losses without the players knowing exactly what they had done. He gave information out based on forces and leadership. For example the ump might say to one side 'You severely outnumber the enemy" if they had Cav superiority or "It looks like they are wavering" if morale got low etc. This kept things a bit unknown for both sides and made guard commitment much more dicey. At the end of the battle forced involved were given rounded up or down 10 Inf based on a die roll and Cav superiority and the chits were revealed. It made for really interesting fights!

fvianello -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/17/2007 7:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DodgyDave HanBarca, where does it say in the normal boardgame rules that the battles are a secret? They never say that explicitly, but they state: quote: 2.4.2 USING THE NATIONAL CARDS: The maximum strengths of corps and fleets are shown on the appropriate National Cards (one card per major power, and one for all of the minor countries). The corps and fleet counters when face-up on the map only how their general type and movement allowance. Which corps each counter represents is shown on the back of the counter and may be examined by only the owning player, except when its identity must be revealed to other players (e.g., during a combat-see 7.5.2.6.3) Based on this rule, my corps are covered by FOW except when I commit them in battle. It would have little sense that, only because France is having a field battle with Russia at Moscow, Spain gets to know what would have been a secret otherwise. Only Russia should get to know the composition of French army, and of course he can spread this information as he wishes. As an additional note, the FOW on corps is more a players' habit than a rule; in fact, in an subsequent official FAQ ADG stated that: quote: What is kept secret? 2.4.2 specifies that specific corps locations are kept secret and that fleet locations and strengths are public. The wording implies that the strengths of corps are public. However, most people seem to play keeping corps strengths secret as well.

JavaJoe -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/18/2007 1:16:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca quote: ORIGINAL: DodgyDave HanBarca, where does it say in the normal boardgame rules that the battles are a secret? They never say that explicitly, but they state: quote: 2.4.2 USING THE NATIONAL CARDS: The maximum strengths of corps and fleets are shown on the appropriate National Cards (one card per major power, and one for all of the minor countries). The corps and fleet counters when face-up on the map only how their general type and movement allowance. Which corps each counter represents is shown on the back of the counter and may be examined by only the owning player, except when its identity must be revealed to other players (e.g., during a combat-see 7.5.2.6.3) Based on this rule, my corps are covered by FOW except when I commit them in battle. It would have little sense that, only because France is having a field battle with Russia at Moscow, Spain gets to know what would have been a secret otherwise. Only Russia should get to know the composition of French army, and of course he can spread this information as he wishes. As an additional note, the FOW on corps is more a players' habit than a rule; in fact, in an subsequent official FAQ ADG stated that: quote: What is kept secret? 2.4.2 specifies that specific corps locations are kept secret and that fleet locations and strengths are public. The wording implies that the strengths of corps are public. However, most people seem to play keeping corps strengths secret as well. The Major Issue regarding open corps strengths is accountability. In the board game you wanted to be able to audit a nation's accounting of their strength points and their monies. The only way to do that was to have open corps strengths although the corps themselves are hidden. In the computer game that accountability is done by the impartial "Constable Marshall" now that we're sure there can't be any "oops my elbow hit the National Strength Card and what I thought were 2 infantry really was 20i in that corps....well that's you're problem bud.. As an option if you want no fow I'm ok with it.....although I don't want to not have it. I prefer it and will implore that it makes the game much much much more enjoyable to try to gather information from others and estimate what's in the other corps and it also allows for great bluffs. Place Napoleon with 5 1 militia corps and threaten someone. Meanwhile have your full army under Massena on the flank of the nation you're schmoozing.[:'(] Think you have the guts to do that? Without fow there's no real bluff.

nappy -> RE: BUg and Suggestions (a start) (12/18/2007 2:10:56 AM)
[/quote] Place Napoleon with 5 1 militia corps and threaten someone. Meanwhile have your full army under Massena on the flank of the nation you're schmoozing.[:'(] Think you have the guts to do that? Without fow there's no real bluff. [/quote] This would still work. No-one is asking for all corps to be revealed at all times, but only some more information as pertains to diplo events and battles that could reasonably be acertained, in a more UI friendly fashion. As others have pointed out - much of the info is already there just buried and some details added - like ship casuaties for naval battles, useful area names and total corps and chits for third party battles. Naps

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.297363