RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (Full Version)

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

Message

delatbabel -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/6/2008 4:48:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this. Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

NeverMan -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/6/2008 5:46:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this. Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first. I agree with Del. Matrix makes it hard for 2 reasons: 1. First, Matrix decided to call a duck a swan: they called this game Empires in Arms. This is going to confuse a lot of people into thinking that this is Empires in Arms (imagine that!! DUH!!), when in fact it's not. 2. The manual should be able to explain the differences but it's riddled with errors, so it's mostly useless. It also does a VERY POOR job of telling people HOW to play the game, which has been discussed ad nausem.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/6/2008 1:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this. Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first. Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for logging it. That's a great idea so that we can collect deviations.

Jimmer -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/7/2008 7:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first. I took an action to do this early on, but forgot about it. I'll do it sometime over the weekend (probably a chapter at a time).

gazfun -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/7/2008 9:40:57 PM)
Its would be a greta feature, as player are basically playing here in hindsight, and are attacking on Frances grab for minors after Napoleon one a lot of victories against the Austrians. If it started in 1792, there would be more free states open, and make players do more diplomacy than what happens now

borner -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/18/2008 4:13:31 AM)
I have seen the Dominant status change several times, although mostly following an French or GB surrender with them loosing it. I have seen Spain gain this status - in a bargin with France to join, and actually obtained it myself as Russia. It was quite fun! It does add much to the game, but I am unsure how much trouble it would be to add to the game, plus, given that the main focus still in on bug extermination, I am not sure it is even something that can be looked at currently

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/18/2008 3:18:44 PM)
This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date.

Jimmer -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (8/18/2008 6:52:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first. I took an action to do this early on, but forgot about it. I'll do it sometime over the weekend (probably a chapter at a time). I started this, but it's a lot more complicated than I thought it would be. Not because the rules are similar, but simply the gravity of the differences. It starts right in the table of contents. In order to match up the other rules, I have to re-number them all (actually, make the comparison routine realize that they are the same rule). This is proving non-trivial; I originally thought it would be easy.

Mardonius -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (11/10/2008 2:47:24 PM)
Marshall: Any updates on the feasibility of the alternate dominant powers come version 1.06 or so? best Mardonius

Murat -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (11/10/2008 4:00:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date. With words like "problematic" "difficult" "complicated" being used to describe this, 1.06 being the next one out and a host of other more immediate bug fixes needed for the current versions as listed in other threads, what do you think? And that quote was on dominant powers.

Mardonius -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (11/10/2008 4:05:37 PM)
Just kicking the ball down the field, Murat. Also, if you read the previous posts closely, you'll notice that the words you are parsing out are referring to the Confederation of the Rhine/Holy Roman Empire surrender terms, not per se to the concept of Alternate Dominant Powers.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (11/10/2008 5:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Murat quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date. With words like "problematic" "difficult" "complicated" being used to describe this, 1.06 being the next one out and a host of other more immediate bug fixes needed for the current versions as listed in other threads, what do you think? And that quote was on dominant powers. Not ready yet (Dominant status). Still alot ahead of me.

Mardonius -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (11/10/2008 6:00:47 PM)
Thank you Marshall. I will check back in a couple of months. Dear Murat: My intention was/is to keep this conversation moving so we can keep this topic heading toward the front burner. I am not, however, in the habit of accepting counterfactual jabs. You insinuated that my request for information was insipid with your "What do you think?" Back on August 18th Marshall said that dominant powers would be " A little problematic" It is now November 10th. I do not think that this time lag is unreasonable between inquiries. What do you think? No where that I can see did I see Marshall write "complicated" or Difficult" in reference to Domiant powers which you directly averred that he did, in the context of insinuating that I was hasty or stupid. Morever, it is near two months since there was a word on this subject. Last time I checked we are now on official version 1.04.7. Enquiring about inclusions in 1.06 or thenabouts is not unreasonable. I would implore you to remain civil. Thank you, Mardonius quote: ORIGINAL: Murat quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date. With words like "problematic" "difficult" "complicated" being used to describe this, 1.06 being the next one out and a host of other more immediate bug fixes needed for the current versions as listed in other threads, what do you think? And that quote was on dominant powers.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission (11/11/2008 12:22:12 PM)
Mardonius: I appreciate you keeping the pings coming. I need these from time to time. :-)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125