TCP/IP capability (Full Version)

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



Message

jclauder -> TCP/IP capability (3/27/2008 9:24:59 AM)

I have been patiently waiting for TCP/IP option to be added to EIA. I play with a group of gamers that only play TCP/IP games. Providing this feature will add four game purchases from our group alone and I'm sure many others as well. It was said to be a part of the initial release. Later it was said to be delayed until the first major patch. Now I am hearing its not important enough to be considered for the second major patch. Should I give up hope for this game that it will ever be TCP/IP capable or will this be added soon? A response on this from Matrix would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks... I would truely enjoy an opportunity to play this game in a simultaneous cooperative fashion.



moopere -> RE: TCP/IP capability (3/27/2008 9:30:38 AM)

This has been spoken of at length, and with some considerable vigour on the forums already. Do a search of existing posts.

Cheerio,
Moopere

PS: Have a look here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1425157&mpage=1&key=





pzgndr -> RE: TCP/IP capability (3/27/2008 3:23:21 PM)

quote:

It was said to be a part of the initial release. Later it was said to be delayed until the first major patch.


I do not recall TCP/IP capability ever being promised for the initial release or an early patch. It was long ago understood that the focus would be on PBEM capability for multiplayer games.

quote:

Should I give up hope for this game that it will ever be TCP/IP capable or will this be added soon?


There have been no announced plans to add TCP/IP soon. It may be considered as a future enhancement, after the game bugs are resolved, the editor is implemented and the other scenarios developed. First things first.

quote:

I would truely enjoy an opportunity to play this game


If so, why aren't you helping to support the game right now?? Every single player here is also looking forward to playing this game - bug free, with all scenarios, with challenging AI, etc. - and every single one of us is still waiting. Join the crowd. Be an active participant, rather than a spectator. We'll all get there eventually. [:)]



cato13 -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/1/2008 12:07:45 PM)

i have to agree with the original poster, i would love to play this game but il never buy it without tcp support, im sorry but im just not prepared to wait 2 years to finish a game.

and to people that say that its impossible to gat enough players to together to play that simply not true. i dunno if there are any other hearts of iron fans here a but i meet with other people from around the world at least one night a week and we manage 4 hours sessions regularly. no reason why this couldnt be done with eia



Cunctator -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/1/2008 2:41:05 PM)

I'm currently involved in 3 pbem games.
I'm having a lot of fun, but the slow pace of those games is a big problem.
I saw two games ending for one player going on holyday or simply desappearing.
How many games will see the end, approximately in 2010?
I don't know, but I'm sure that TCP/IP would be the best answer, because in one session of 4 hours the game would advance as in one week (at least) of Pbem.
Probably TCP/Ip is 4/5 times faster than PBEM, as an average, meaning that my games would see the light within the end of this year or earlier.
I'm not a programmer, so I cannot understand if it is doable or not, but it would be great!
C.



pzgndr -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/1/2008 3:04:56 PM)

I don't think anyone is arguing against TCP/IP. As I understand it, when development started many years ago the code architecture was not designed for it. While not impossible, it would be a major effort to retrofit the code now. There are other priorities to work on first. I would hope the developers would commit to implementing TCP/IP eventually, but we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the discussions about hotseating by remote desktop connection look encouraging. That could be an interim solution to help speed games along. But let's get the game itself working right first.




Marshall Ellis -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/1/2008 3:26:28 PM)

I won't commit to anything yet until we get over the hill with some breathing room.
Once we've addressed the major stuff then I'll resume work on the editor and other scenarios for a major release. At that point we can look at what the priorities are and address them accordingly.

The original design did include IP and there is already some IP code in the game. Frankly, my biggest problem may be the fact that the IP tools I'm using may be obsolete in the new compiler which could force me to do some pretty large rewrites. Just an FYI, I'll be jumping from Borland C Builder 5 to Borland (Code Gear) C Builder 2007 at some point and this is a pretty drastic upgrade. Sorry for the rambling but there it is!




moopere -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/3/2008 6:59:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tonedog
at least one night a week and we manage 4 hours sessions regularly.


This is almost certainly an age demographics thing. A lot of folks in certain age groups just don't have this sort of time and PBEM with its inherent time flexibility will suit them a lot better.

The question that Matrix will want to answer for themselves is roughly what sort of current buyers and future buyers are in the different age brackets that make one style of play more popular than another style.

It could be that the older crowd has already made their purchases based on PBEM functionality and that those sales are largely played out already. The developers may have statistical information which would lead them to believe that a new burst of sales and interest could be generated by specifically targeting a different demographic.

Cheers, Moopere



ravinhood -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/4/2008 8:25:27 AM)

Sorry, but, I never understood people wanting to sit while online twiddling their thumbs while someone else takes their TURN. Talk about boring. TCP/IP is for ?? clickfest games and FPSers. It's ok for turn based games that only will last an hour or two at most, but, for long drawn out strategy games like this and many others it's just wasted resources in my book. TCP/IP for games like Combat Mission works ok because you can setup short small map 1000pt quick battles and since there's only two participants those work ok. I just always felt people who play turn based long drawn out games online are just wasting their time and spend more time sitting waiting on their turn than playing the game. I tried some Civ II online and HOMM, Age of Wonders and they just became boring messes and people would drop out in the middle of them. PBEM is best for 99.9% of computer turn based gaming. I have several PBEM games going most all the time. Best not to waste resources on TCP/IP play for this one. Paradox games work well online because they are real time and most of those players play it on high speeds, but, turn based games even if you have 3-5 minute turn limits tend to end up long and drawn out and boring. There's a few turn based games that work ok for TCP/IP this is just not one of them.



bresh -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/4/2008 2:16:02 PM)

I do belive only battles (by tcp/ip) connections would speed the game. (Instead of file exchange), players still need to sit and wait for other players to run their turns, and its way easier to find pbm-players than 7 players who all have the time during the same hours(worldwide).
While Battles seem to be one thing that could give most time delay.

Regards
Bresh



pzgndr -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/4/2008 4:03:02 PM)

quote:

turn based games even if you have 3-5 minute turn limits tend to end up long and drawn out and boring


This is up to individual players to decide. It's no less boring than playing face-to-face over a boardgame and waiting for your opponent(s) to complete their turn. I've played Strategic Command via TCP/IP where turns can be up to 10-15 minutes at times, and waiting for the AI to complete its turn can often take as long or longer for some games. This is the nature of wargaming when playing larger complex games. One must be patient.

Personally I can't see myself getting into a 7-player EiA campaign game via TCP/IP and having to commit to lengthy blocks of time to complete a long game. My schedule is too hectic. But I won't begrudge those who would. I've been very impressed with the speed of the AI in EiA and could see 2-3 player games via network once the AI gets more competent and competitive. And certainly once the smaller scenarios get completed, network capability would be a nice option for fast games.



jclauder -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/5/2008 9:44:41 AM)

There seems to be a major misunderstanding about TCP/IP play. Most seem to think it will involve 7 players. Our group plays with 2-4 players, usually two separate games of two players. We play cooperatively. So in this case, One player might be France and the other Spain in the 1805 campaign game. Playing like this and having the AI play the ohter nations makes for a very fast game that is fun for 2-4 people. I only hope this will get attention sooner rather than later.

Thanks,



ParJ -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/5/2008 6:42:17 PM)

Properly implemented, a TCP/IP add on to the game should allow you to prepare your moves in advance so the actual time during your turn spent on actually thinking and moving units should be able to be minimized.

All Major Powers not finding themselves at War with any Major power could do their Land and Naval move at any time and when it's their turn just commit the prepared move. This is what you normally do while playing the boargame version of a game, but you have to do it "in your head". With a computer game everyone could easily have their own personnal view of the map to play aroud with between actual turns.

It might require quite a big change to the game, since it's very strict in what you can do and change in each phase (as an example you cannot change a garrison response to siege other than in reinforcement and naval as I recall, Can't see why this couldn't be allowed in any phase).

Have all actions performed by a player while not actively taking it's turn in some sort of transaction queue that is automatically (or prompted for) carried out when that phase comes up for that player and the change is still valid (a move of a unit from one are to another would not be "valid" if that unit would have been forced to retreat in another players turn).

And compared to when I and 6 others played the boardgame for 11-12 full days (09-24) every three to four weeks over a year (and having to record every unit and garrison and set them up again at the next playing session) I would think that this could be reduced to 3-4 hours per week for 2-3 months to complete one game. And you could actively take decisions when you're not active instead of passively issuing orders what to do if attacked.

I do really hope that there will be a good TCP/IP support in this game. I doubt that I will convice my old playing buddies to buy this game unless TCP/IP is supported. We might try to use the hot-seat once most of the bugs are gone, but not having access to the map while it's not your turn makes that not so appealing. Could be partially countered by having the boardgame set up somewhere as well.

Regards,

Oto



Ralegh -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/7/2008 2:52:14 AM)

That leads us to a new feature request: ability to output a map - either for printing (size to A4 please - letter people will be fine); or for display on screen when its not your turn...
(a) just the map
(b) showing control markers
(c) showing all counters

Extension1: Output the VP diagram, the PP chart, and the nation war/allied table thingie.
Extension2: Output your own Order Of Battle (corps, capacity, current factors), list of garrisons

(Marshall - drop this on a list somewhere please)



Jimmer -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/7/2008 6:01:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oto02

Properly implemented, a TCP/IP add on to the game should allow you to prepare your moves in advance so the actual time during your turn spent on actually thinking and moving units should be able to be minimized.

All Major Powers not finding themselves at War with any Major power could do their Land and Naval move at any time and when it's their turn just commit the prepared move. This is what you normally do while playing the boargame version of a game, but you have to do it "in your head". With a computer game everyone could easily have their own personnal view of the map to play aroud with between actual turns.

This is incorrect. Each player's move is frequently VERY dependent upon seeing how the previous players moved. France is the best example of this, for land movement, but others need to know, too.

For example, assume that GB is moving last. Also, France attempted to break out of port somewhere, and succeeded. Should GB use his prepared move? Only if he relishes losing.



timewalker03 -> RE: TCP/IP capability (4/9/2008 10:01:15 AM)

Another thing to look at using TCP/IP play is the effective use of MSN messenger or a even a voicechat server like Ventrilo or teamspeak to help speed up diplomacy and also as a time to just chat. Board games are designed for the fun but also the social aspect they bring. The one major thing I have noticed about PBEM is the social aspect of the game has been severely reduced and is usually only encountered with specific strategy or talking about a rule or complaining about what another player has done. So for the social side of things I believe it would enhance the game and bring us back to what the game was for in the first place.



NeverMan -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/10/2008 11:34:52 PM)

Rather than start a new thread, I wanted to just post this here.

I'm slightly confused as to why TCP/IP would take much more work. Right now the game reads in from files, so rather then "reading in from a file" you just send the same info in packets. Why would this not work? Unless I am really missing something, all you need to do is redirect the info. Instead of outputting the info to the .pbm file, store it to some structure and pass the structure. And instead of reading in from the files, you read in from the socket buffer.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/12/2008 2:29:20 PM)

Neverman:

You're spot on. It's won't be much more work since much of my PBEM code will be reused just as you mentioned. Most of the code work will be socket based. It is a little more complicated than you think when you start xfering raw data using sockets in a UDP (Send and Pray) method. The handshaking and ACKs / NAKs are all up to me! There are a lot of housekeeping IP issues that take your time in dev. BUT you are correct that there is less work than starting from scratch.

Let me get the "I" in "AI" fixed up a bit then maybe I can switch gears to look at this more closely.





NeverMan -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/12/2008 6:17:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Neverman:

You're spot on. It's won't be much more work since much of my PBEM code will be reused just as you mentioned. Most of the code work will be socket based. It is a little more complicated than you think when you start xfering raw data using sockets in a UDP (Send and Pray) method. The handshaking and ACKs / NAKs are all up to me! There are a lot of housekeeping IP issues that take your time in dev. BUT you are correct that there is less work than starting from scratch.

Let me get the "I" in "AI" fixed up a bit then maybe I can switch gears to look at this more closely.





Oh yeah, I understand that IF this gets addressed, it's on the way back burner.

Why would you have to use UDP though? It really wouldn't be TCP/IP anymore, since you would be using UDP and not TCP as the transport protocol. Yes, I realize that coding reliable UDP is a bit more tedious and time consuming, I have done it myself in the past.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/13/2008 3:25:43 PM)

NeverMan:

Most IP basedgames (That I have seen) actually use UDP because they do not have to play by the TCP rules for maintaining socket connections (timeouts, etc.). It's connection-less so your app doesn't get flooded with socket disconnect exceptions, forcing you to re-establish socket connections, etc. I also understand (Been told this but haven't confirmed for myself yet) that UDP is quicker with less overhead. This may matter in a 1st person shooter but has little benefit for EiANW. Sorry for the rambling but I guess may answer would be "Don't really know if I will use UDP yet??? When I get to that bridge, I'll study a little closer the transport options".







Grognot -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/13/2008 11:17:39 PM)

UDP is probably more useful in something like Netrek -- up to 16 players continuously trading packets with the main server.  Low latency, and with the way the game was designed, things don't shatter if some packets don't make it.  (Although *your ship* may shatter if the 'shields up' command packet gets dropped). 

I don't think it's particularly relevant to something like EiA.  You'd mostly be sending data in bulk transfers unless you redesign the game like allow truly simultaneous econ phase (with updates as the players do their thing) or split the diplomacy phase into a series of simultaneously-done steps.





Marshall Ellis -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/14/2008 12:01:20 AM)

Grognot:

Good point. My xfers will be larger and much less speed dependent. FTP functions could even be used here???






NeverMan -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/14/2008 12:06:24 AM)

I'm not entirely sure how FTP functions are used but I would imagine, from my experience, that it would make things more difficult. The UDP/IP with reliable (Selective Window or Go-Back-N functions) would be the eaiser, even with having to send an ACK. This really shouldn't be more than 100 or so lines of code per side. Personally, if I was coding this and the transfer size is unknown (and it will be), I would use TCP/IP for the inherent functions it provides and do it in a Client-Server environment, since the game already requires a "host" and is not inherently P2P.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/14/2008 12:10:47 AM)

NeverMan:

Haven't tested this very much but there are controls that I can drop onto a form that allow FTP xfers from a high level. This might make it possible to do it 20 lines or less (I said might). This might be a little slower but as we said earlier speed is less of an issue.




obsidiandrag -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/15/2008 11:07:50 PM)

I had made a comment on another forum about the possibility of the TCP/IP and was told it was a dead horse and to look these forums up.  After reading the last 30 or so posts on the subject, I don't think it's dead at all.  I still believe it would make the phases easier.  I have not played the PBEM game yet as I have read all the horror stories of not sending files or computer taking over the game etc.. that and I really don't have anyone I e-mail that often who playes this game.  I do however think if it was set up as an online game to enter or save etc.. it would play very well and you could meet up with other people TO PLAY the game with.  The diplomacy phase alone would be so much better served by being real time.  It is almost impossible to take into account all of the possibilities of the DOW's so the little check boxes have inadvertantly caused me to loose countless alliances and brought me to war with countries that should have never happened (Prussia declaring on Spain for instance...?)  I understand this is a background issue and should wait until after the other more prominent bugs are worked out...  But would definately like to put my vote in for this rather then the PBEM where you send in your turn and then have to wait for the next e-mail to see what happened...



NeverMan -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/16/2008 1:26:51 AM)

obsi,

You really should try PBEM, at least try it. I am in 2 PBEM games right now that are going along fine. The only thing is that it would be GREAT if some of the phases could be done simultaneously, like the Eco Phase (this has also been discussed to some length in another thread somewhere). For a 24 hour turnaround game, this implementation would dramatically speed the game up, even a 2X speedup would be huge.

I agree that the interface needs to be fixed when it comes to allying/surrendering/DOWing/etc, as it stands right now, I still can't figure out who I am calling and when. It really limits game play.

The funny thing is no one uses email at all, both of my games are using "group" pages (either google or yahoo) and the files get uploaded/downloaded from there, so as it stands now the game (in a practical sense) is not really stand alone PBEM.



bresh -> RE: TCP/IP capability (5/16/2008 10:39:47 AM)

One of the few things i think tcp/ip could speed up would be battles.
As a bonus it could also remove alot of fears for cheats.
Right now i think most my pbm games the defender has to email someone with his chit-choise.
This could save alot of emails.

Offcourse it would have to be an option.
And not sure how to do.
But for battles you could be asked, if you wanted to connect to xxx.
But you would have to agree with the defender for some specific time both players be avaible, so that if you could not do it by tcp you still had the pbm-battle options.

Regards
Bresh



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875