RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities

RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (Full Version)

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

Message

NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/15/2008 8:45:15 PM)
I agree with Soapy Frog, we never used EiH rules, as most of us thought they were just not that good. We did use some Naval Combat system that was printed in the General (maybe that was an EiH rule, not sure) but other than that, no. I just can't wait until the editor comes out so we can all play EiA. That will be great. The PC version has many bugs, which you won't get in a FTF game. Yes, it takes care of SOME of the computations, but nothing that a few minutes, a calculator and a pad and pencil couldn't handle. The PC version is also limited in the types/amount of rules you can play with. Yes, you can institute "house rules" but you can do that FTF anyways. The ONLY advantage to using EiANW (and I really mean ONLY) is that you don't have to collect 7 players in 1 room at 1 time to play. That is what it has done. There have been other implementations (FREE) that have done the same thing with far less bugs. Albeit, they don't have an AI, but then again, this game doesn't really have one either, YET. I have little doubt that if Matrix and Marshall stay committed to this game that it will be a LOT of fun; however, because of the bad design decisions they made in the beginning, this game will NEVER be EiA. IP Play should have been implemented instead of Hotseat, I mean, come on man, it's 2008 already. I thought Hotseat went the way of the C64. DOES ANYONE HERE USE HOTSEAT other than to play against yourself or 1 other buddy?

baboune -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/15/2008 10:25:03 PM)
Who cares a bout the AI? This game needs first a good UI and to implement the core EiA game. The ONLY reason I still have it is because I am in Europe and my friends in North America, and I was stupid enough to think that MAYBE I could play EiA despite all the "features" in that thing. Dump the AI (that is an almost impossible task) and concentrate on providing a good multiplayer game.

delatbabel -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/16/2008 4:24:45 AM)
Hrm, I quite like having the AI there even if it is bone stupid because it teaches the basic game and UI concepts. For example, in my first game I had no idea how to assault a city (move the surrounding area troops into the city, duh) but watching the AI do it I figured that out pretty quickly. I would always direct a new EiA player to play against the AI once or twice before taking on a PBEM game. Let's face it, there aren't many AIs in computer wargames out there that are much good. Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Medieval: Total War, Warcraft, and maybe a half dozen or so others are there on my shelf as games to play for a wintery day, and in each one of those I can usually smack the AI around quite mercilessly. The only thing that most of the AIs manage to do is get in your way occasionally. The only real challenge is to do the impossible -- e.g. conquering the world as Portugal or Novgorod. In EiANW I'll be pretty happy if one day, playing as France, Austria and Prussia manage to cause me some stress, or playing as Prussia and rejecting alliances from Austria and Russia I get trounced by the French (which shouldn't be too hard to code).

KenClark -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/16/2008 5:54:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: baboune Who cares a bout the AI? This game needs first a good UI and to implement the core EiA game. The ONLY reason I still have it is because I am in Europe and my friends in North America, and I was stupid enough to think that MAYBE I could play EiA despite all the "features" in that thing. Dump the AI (that is an almost impossible task) and concentrate on providing a good multiplayer game. +1

AresMars -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/16/2008 10:22:22 PM)
Ditto... the AI should be for "training purposes" only. Before I get blasted for this, I am aware that there are many people who bought this game with playing the AI in mind. To them, I extend my most sincere apologies.... I am a PBEM advocate....people are better then computers....

baboune -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/17/2008 12:46:52 AM)
Why not make this a poll? Then everyone can vote on what goes in next patch?

NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/17/2008 1:06:03 AM)
Although I like the idea of Matrix working solely on PBEM, it simply is not practical from an economic standpoint for Matrix AND it's unfair to those how have already purchased the game thinking they would get an AI. The AI needs to be fixed, period. Matrix knows this and that's good for them.

baboune -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/17/2008 1:18:40 AM)
lol And I bought this game hoping I would be able to play EiA. Now I get to play a different game AND I can not even see my country and forces on one screen or change the resolution or play in windowed mode or access important infos and the list goes on and on ... Realistically, looking at the current EiANW, hopes are the AI will remain (horribly) bad even when it is "fixed". And yes from an economic standpoint I dont even understand why they are still working on this game at all. To fix this will take years. Will it bring additional customers? I doubt it. So how do they get money? Well I guess I am just horribly disapointed.[:(]

Ashtar -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/17/2008 1:51:45 PM)
quote: Why not make this a poll? Then everyone can vote on what goes in next patch? First fix the pp per loaned corps and the Naval rules (evasion, pursuit, 1/2 pp per fleet, correct combat in blockaded boxes). Add Kingdom of Italy and Dardanelles control. This is much needed to have a running balanced game and it is going to be much faster then writing good AI strategies. When the core game rules works, fix the AI as better as you can (but it will never be good enough, you all realizes that?), check anti-cheating issues and/or security ones, improve the interface, clean the remaining rules and small bug glitches and think about TCP/IP, editors and whatever other bells and whistles you could like. But please, start giving us a solid EIA gameplay!

jnier -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/17/2008 2:53:32 PM)
As an alternative to AI, has anyone ever considered implementing the uncontrolled major power rules? That would eliminate the AI problem entirely, except for solo play.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/17/2008 3:00:18 PM)
jnier: Interesting idea! How bout this in addition to the improved AI (NO, not in 1.03 but maybe later)? How does everybody feel about the UMP rules?

pzgndr -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/17/2008 3:23:44 PM)
Marshall, anything and everything you can do to make the game complete and appealing for everyone -- pbem'ers, solitaire gamers, EiA'ers, EiH'ers, -- is the way to go. Options for UMP or AI or combinations would be good. Editor options to allow EiA or EiH OOBs, or whatever, would be good. Provide all players an opportunity to play the game as they choose to play. [&o] Despite a few selfish voices harping on "their way or the highway," most players seem to support all features and are willing to be patient for it all to happen. Well, some not so patient as others I suppose. Too bad for them. You and Matrix have a decent plan forward. Keep at it and make it happen. Looking forward to v1.03 and your AI improvements. [8D]

Marshall Ellis -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/18/2008 2:44:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr Marshall, anything and everything you can do to make the game complete and appealing for everyone -- pbem'ers, solitaire gamers, EiA'ers, EiH'ers, -- is the way to go. Options for UMP or AI or combinations would be good. Editor options to allow EiA or EiH OOBs, or whatever, would be good. Provide all players an opportunity to play the game as they choose to play. [&o] Despite a few selfish voices harping on "their way or the highway," most players seem to support all features and are willing to be patient for it all to happen. Well, some not so patient as others I suppose. Too bad for them. You and Matrix have a decent plan forward. Keep at it and make it happen. Looking forward to v1.03 and your AI improvements. [8D] Appreciate the support. It is sometimes difficult to determine what really is being asked for by the masses or being screamed for by the few. :-) Tough job...

NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/18/2008 3:43:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr Marshall, anything and everything you can do to make the game complete and appealing for everyone -- pbem'ers, solitaire gamers, EiA'ers, EiH'ers, -- is the way to go. Options for UMP or AI or combinations would be good. Editor options to allow EiA or EiH OOBs, or whatever, would be good. Provide all players an opportunity to play the game as they choose to play. [&o] Despite a few selfish voices harping on "their way or the highway," most players seem to support all features and are willing to be patient for it all to happen. Well, some not so patient as others I suppose. Too bad for them. You and Matrix have a decent plan forward. Keep at it and make it happen. Looking forward to v1.03 and your AI improvements. [8D] Appreciate the support. It is sometimes difficult to determine what really is being asked for by the masses or being screamed for by the few. :-) Tough job... Marshall, this idea should have been the cornerstone of the design process from DAY ONE: ROBUSTNESS. For some reason, it wasn't. I don't know why. Instead of making all that EiH crap options (which is exactly what they are) you guys hard coded that crap into the game. Why not make them options?????? Why not just make BASE EiA (which really probablyl would have been easier for you guys), then have a lot of extra options and then add an editor/modder?? This really would have made the most sense, IMO. Then you really wouldn't have to worry about who was screaming for what.

pzgndr -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/18/2008 5:36:32 PM)
quote: Instead of making all that EiH crap options (which is exactly what they are) you guys hard coded that crap into the game. Why not make them options?????? It may not be a hardcoded issue so much as an OOB issue? Given an editor to create default EiA units, particularly fleets without light fleets and transports, most of the EiH stuff is rendered moot -- piracy/anti-piracy, transports, proportional naval losses, etc. There should be a game option to enable/disable influencing minor countries in the diplomacy phase. But, what else specifically? Marshall should have a list of differences and suggestions for how to implement on/off options.

Soapy Frog -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/18/2008 6:32:16 PM)
Just take the EiA rulebook and go through it rule by rule. The base EiA rulebook is what most people want; it's the game we all know and have played. Once you have that (and the optionals that are in there), then you can start tacking on options that are not in the rulebook, maybe starting with the "official" optionals from the general (Advanced naval rules, Turkish options, Swedish major power maybe) and then moving on to the more fan-made stuff like EiH.

JanSorensen -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/18/2008 7:56:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr quote: Instead of making all that EiH crap options (which is exactly what they are) you guys hard coded that crap into the game. Why not make them options?????? It may not be a hardcoded issue so much as an OOB issue? Given an editor to create default EiA units, particularly fleets without light fleets and transports, most of the EiH stuff is rendered moot -- piracy/anti-piracy, transports, proportional naval losses, etc. There should be a game option to enable/disable influencing minor countries in the diplomacy phase. But, what else specifically? Marshall should have a list of differences and suggestions for how to implement on/off options. It would be quite easy to mod out the minor diplomacy stuff. Simply set the numbers to change the stance of a minor to some really high value :)

Marshall Ellis -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/18/2008 11:39:20 PM)
Hey guys: The EiH stuff is in there because it was a part of the main design scope of our engine which was PRE EiA licensing. Michael Treasure actually helped n this respect. We decided to keep this in the game for the first release. Call it what it is but that's the story.

Soapy Frog -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/19/2008 12:12:04 AM)
Fine. Now, how to get rid of it all? ;)

NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/19/2008 12:40:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog Fine. Now, how to get rid of it all? ;) I second this.

baboune -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/19/2008 12:42:02 AM)
It seems that these EiH rules are very unbalanced and create lots of major problems with the game. I would be in favor of removing them.

delatbabel -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/19/2008 3:38:23 AM)
+1 to getting rid of the EiH rules but this should probably be handled via a scenario editor. quote: Interesting idea! How bout this in addition to the improved AI (NO, not in 1.03 but maybe later)? How does everybody feel about the UMP rules? marshall, I think that the UMP rules have serious problems (see here: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiarules-with-errata.html section 14.3) and to be honest I would prefer a decent AI. However for some players the UMP rules might be useful. I'm not sure how easy they would be to implement, and in any case I think they would need adjusting from scenario to scenario (e.g. in the 1805 scenario Austria and Prussia are natural allies, but somewhat earlier or later than this, that was NOT the case). My main gripe with the UMP rules is that they can be used for a bit of gamesmanship. In one EiA 1792 FTF game we just finished, we had Prussia and Turkey as UMPs. Turkey was used quite fairly by the Spanish player to pretty much save his own life -- keep Britain fighting in the Levant when he (me that is) was threatening an attack on the Spanish territories in North Africa and Italy. However Prussia was raped by Russia -- forces taken control of and forced marched to death, so that Russia could subsequently declare war and capture the Polish provinces. So they sometimes have their uses but also have serious issues. I would not be in favour of adding the UMP rules at the moment but if someone wants to put it into the bug tracker as an issue then I'm sure it will be looked at by the Matrix team (which I'm not a part of, just the bug tracker admin and volunteer software tester).

JavaJoe -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/21/2008 2:33:06 AM)
Marshall, The UMP rules will help PBEM tremendously!!! They will not help solo play. The AI will still be controlling the UMPs. Joe

NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/21/2008 6:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel However Prussia was raped by Russia -- forces taken control of and forced marched to death, so that Russia could subsequently declare war and capture the Polish provinces. So they sometimes have their uses but also have serious issues. You should re-consider who you play with if you are playing with grown man who act this way. Seriously.

bresh -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/22/2008 7:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel However Prussia was raped by Russia -- forces taken control of and forced marched to death, so that Russia could subsequently declare war and capture the Polish provinces. So they sometimes have their uses but also have serious issues. You should re-consider who you play with if you are playing with grown man who act this way. Seriously. Yeah, sounds like abusing. So houserule no abusing allowed. I would have dropped out if anyone did that, or find a replacement for Russia... Regards Bresh

Marshall Ellis -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/22/2008 8:13:04 PM)
I like the idea of a human actually gaining control of an AI player through some type of UMP rule. Maybe as an option?

NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/23/2008 1:05:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis I like the idea of a human actually gaining control of an AI player through some type of UMP rule. Maybe as an option? Why not? Options, options and more options...........the keyword there being options. If you make it a non-option, then someone is bound to complain. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that making a simple BASE game and having lots of options is a good idea.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625