It's been said before but... (Full Version)

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



Message

dodod -> It's been said before but... (6/21/2008 5:05:16 PM)

having the option or making everyone do econ, diplomacy, and even reinforcement at the same time is vital to PBEM games.

I know everyone wants this to be the board game, but it's not..and there are certain advantages to that...for example, the loan corp, while disadvantageous in some ways, can be used realistically with limitations to change the dynamics of the game...

In the same fashion, as all PBEM games fizzle when there is a long lag time, it would be prudent to make the game more exciting by speeding it up a bit.

In regards to reinforcement, I know there are all these naysayers...but just have everyone do their reinforcement, have france run them all and then france can choose when to go during his own last reinforcement.

This would definitely be worth the programming.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/22/2008 8:10:26 PM)

dodod:

Sorry but reinforcement order is intentional and you effect game balance when France does not get to see what (if any corps) are placed. An argument could also be made here that econ (Levy steps) also make ordering intentional since in December Turkey could basically make massive force movements.

I actually think the only phase that has possibilities here would be diplomacy.




Soapy Frog -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/22/2008 10:28:01 PM)

I would be willing to accept simultaneous diplo, reinforcement and economics as neccessary to expediting PBEM play. Typically in FTF play, reinforcements is most often done simultaneously in the interests of speeding things up, only very occasionally is reinforcement order somewhat important.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/22/2008 10:33:44 PM)

Simultaneous econ is a definite yes to me. There's only one item that can help knowing what other people have done: Whether GB trades or not. But, GB can set that any time, so it shouldn't affect the actual econ phase being simultaneous.

Simultaneous diplo will work, although every bit of dumbing down of the diplo phase removes a little more of the game.

Simultaneous reinforcement would destroy the game. Already, having Great Britian going near the front makes for a massive change, as far as naval goes. An even larger change would occur to France with simultaneous land reinforcement. The GB naval problem can be corrected by making them go second-to-last. This would make the current setup at least playable.



Soapy Frog -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/22/2008 10:39:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Simultaneous reinforcement would destroy the game.

That's an interesting theory!



borner -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/22/2008 11:41:11 PM)

I can understand the reinf issue is some cases, but ANYTHING to speed up PBEM games would, in my opinion, be worth the trade off. The system is workable, but slow. Maybe a feature to have this as an option when the game is set up, but my guess is that teh vast majority of players would take the limitations caused by combining these phases, in exchange for speeding up PBEM games.




DCWhitworth -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 12:00:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I can understand the reinf issue is some cases, but ANYTHING to speed up PBEM games would, in my opinion, be worth the trade off. The system is workable, but slow. Maybe a feature to have this as an option when the game is set up, but my guess is that teh vast majority of players would take the limitations caused by combining these phases, in exchange for speeding up PBEM games.



Absolutely. One simply cannot expect to preserve every little nuance of the board game when transferring it to PBEM.



JanSorensen -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 12:28:44 AM)

I strongly agree that these phases need to be made simultaneously (as an option if nothing else). The game is simply too damn slow as it is.



NeverMan -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 12:58:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I can understand the reinf issue is some cases, but ANYTHING to speed up PBEM games would, in my opinion, be worth the trade off. The system is workable, but slow. Maybe a feature to have this as an option when the game is set up, but my guess is that teh vast majority of players would take the limitations caused by combining these phases, in exchange for speeding up PBEM games.



Absolutely. One simply cannot expect to preserve every little nuance of the board game when transferring it to PBEM.


I agree complete, anything to speed up this archiac method of PC gaming would be great and worth the tradeoff.

Of course, none of this would be much of an issue with IP play.



KenClark -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 5:07:56 PM)

I like PBEM for the versatility in when you do your turn, it avoids having everyone be online at the same time. This is a definite plus in my book. I'd also like an IP version because that would be more like the board game where you can play with your friends no matter where they live now if you can all agree on a time (and would allow for combined movement etc.).

That being said, there is no real drawback to economics being simultaneous, same with diplomacy. Reinforcement could be made simultaneous with a small but in my mind acceptable decrease in game mechanics. The levy step for the Turks is a no-brainer, as you always raise all your available troops in December (unless you are brain damaged). Raising or putting down the feudals is not a game-breaker.

This would speed up PBEM games probably by 25-40%, or more, and would be a great boon.

Currently, I am in a PBEM game and playing GB. I have no issues with the reinforcement phase being simultaneous given that the only decision I have to make is where to put Nelson (most of the time). I can figure out where all the other navies are going to be put, and the land reinfrocement isn't a big deal.

If I were playing France, I might complain a little about the land phases, but since there's no screening corps in the game, it really doesn't affect much. (if there were screening corps, the Militia reinforcement phase can be very interesting, but even then, I wouldn't be too worried about where to put my leaders compared with the others).



NeverMan -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 6:00:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

I like PBEM for the versatility in when you do your turn, it avoids having everyone be online at the same time. This is a definite plus in my book. I'd also like an IP version because that would be more like the board game where you can play with your friends no matter where they live now if you can all agree on a time (and would allow for combined movement etc.).


Why can't a game be both? Why can't a game seamlessly switch between PBEM and IP play? Back and forth as the players situations/availability change? I just don't see why this is so hard.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 8:33:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I can understand the reinf issue is some cases, but ANYTHING to speed up PBEM games would, in my opinion, be worth the trade off. The system is workable, but slow. Maybe a feature to have this as an option when the game is set up, but my guess is that teh vast majority of players would take the limitations caused by combining these phases, in exchange for speeding up PBEM games.



Well, why don't we just roll dice? Top score wins the game. Do-over whenever there's a tie.

Stupid idea? Of course. But, it's the reductio ad absurdum to dumbing down the phases for the purpose of speeding up the game.

At what point does the dumbing down change the game? In some ways, we've already crossed that point. Go much further, and there won't be anything left.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 8:39:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I just don't see why this is so hard.

Have you ever written code against either the TCP/IP model or the Seven-Layer model?



baboune -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 9:11:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I can understand the reinf issue is some cases, but ANYTHING to speed up PBEM games would, in my opinion, be worth the trade off. The system is workable, but slow. Maybe a feature to have this as an option when the game is set up, but my guess is that teh vast majority of players would take the limitations caused by combining these phases, in exchange for speeding up PBEM games.



Well, why don't we just roll dice? Top score wins the game. Do-over whenever there's a tie.

Stupid idea? Of course. But, it's the reductio ad absurdum to dumbing down the phases for the purpose of speeding up the game.



I don't understand why you believe that simultaneous reinf is such a big issue?



Soapy Frog -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/23/2008 9:37:21 PM)

Jimmer it's pretty clear you lack perspective on this issue. Streamlining something like the reinforcement phase would be well worth the small price paid in terms of game-mechanics. I'm not sure if you've PLAYED PBEM lately but at this point it is very unlikely that a Grand Campaign would take less that 3 or 4 years of consistent play to complete.

I find it a bit laughable that you seem to think the integrity of the game hinges on the sequence of reinforcement, esp. based on the other missing/changed rules which you have essentially apologized for/endorsed in other threads.



NeverMan -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 12:24:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I just don't see why this is so hard.

Have you ever written code against either the TCP/IP model or the Seven-Layer model?


Yes. Why in gods name would anyone use the OSI model these days (or ever for that matter)? It's really only being used as an academic teaching tool.

I don't really see how this is a code problem as much as it is a "figuring out the states" problem. Once the state machine is established, the coding is not that difficult (if the state machine is good).



NeverMan -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 12:27:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog


I find it a bit laughable that you seem to think the integrity of the game hinges on the sequence of reinforcement, esp. based on the other missing/changed rules which you have essentially apologized for/endorsed in other threads.


Here's the rub, IMO.

How can one argue against simul reinf when there are 1000 other rules changes (most of which are much more important, ex: combined movement, naval phase, the list goes on) that make this game very different from Empires in Arms (yes, I understand that Matrix has given this game the EiA name stamp for purposes of marketing/getting people to buy it but it's obviously not EiA).

This game is not EiA, Matrix has expressed that doesn't bother them (ie. they're not planning on trying to make it EiA) so why should we really care about the integrity of the reinf phase at this point? Let's at least get a game that we can "pretend" is EiA and that is actually possible to finish, that would be great.

Maybe when Matrix hits the 21st century we can get IP play and then this whole argument will be moot.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 12:32:34 AM)

Hey guys:

It's not that IP would be hard just time consuming. You guys know that almost anything could be done given enough time. We had way more people wanting the PBEM version. I'm not objective enough to really know if the current PBEM is quick enough. I do know the pace is MUCH quicker than any PBEM games that I have been involved with since I have played many PBEM games a little ways back to guage play speed and I personally think this PBEM is much better than some old game box system BUT I'm not objective enough since I've been involved in this so long that most functions / procedures are instinctive to me at this point. I would have to listen to you guys for this input.

For the record:

I have played in 5 PBEM (Spain, Great Britain, Turkey, Russia and Russia again) games in the past few years to get a feel for how it was done and how it should be done. IMO we have streamlined this monster already by combing steps in certain phases, etc. I'm not saying she's maxed out on streamlining but I still cannot understand how you guys could ask for simultaneous reinforcement???
Tell me how taking away France's ability to review other nation placements does not affect balance?
I'm puzzled at how a French player would accept this????????




NeverMan -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 12:36:21 AM)

It's not that it wouldn't effect the game, everyone here agrees that it will, it's that PBEM IS TOO DAMN SLOW!!! Any comprimise to make this game faster than the speed of snail I'm all for! The game is already some chopped up, mashed up, chewed up, spit out skeleton of EiA anyways, so who cares.

BESIDES, maybe this will help counter balance the fact that this game does not have combined movement (an essential aspect to the game Empires in Arms).



Marshall Ellis -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 12:44:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
BESIDES, maybe this will help counter balance the fact that this game does not have combined movement (an essential aspect to the game Empires in Arms).


I don't want another reason to look over my back, Neverman LOL!






Soapy Frog -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 12:51:29 AM)

Agreed, honestly I really don't think that France's ability to react or not to the reinforcements of other countries is in any way a game breaker (someone explain to me why this is so game breakingly important again?? Placement of leaders is the only significant thing and frankly whoopdedoo). IMHO it is MUCH worse for game balance that we don't have proper combined movement rules or that trivial battles are not properly implemented, or that there is no option to retreat inside the city before a field battle. The reinforcement thing is really pretty minor set against that, and the gains from doing 3 phases (diplomacy, reinforcement and economics) simultaneously would be quite significant in terms of time saved.

Our current PBEM group is averaging at less than 1.5 turns per month. That gives us an estimated play time of 7 years :(



NeverMan -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 12:57:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
BESIDES, maybe this will help counter balance the fact that this game does not have combined movement (an essential aspect to the game Empires in Arms).


I don't want another reason to look over my back, Neverman LOL!


LOL. No need to worry. I'm not THAT obsessed with EiA, :).

Seriously, though, I just don't see this as that big a deal considering the current condition of the game. Is it possible to have game options to do different simul phases or not? I realize this is extra coding but it would give the game a broader audience.

PBEM games are simply too slow, it's like watching a snail walk 10 miles to school uphill in a snowstorm without shoes.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 1:35:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Agreed, honestly I really don't think that France's ability to react or not to the reinforcements of other countries is in any way a game breaker (someone explain to me why this is so game breakingly important again?? Placement of leaders is the only significant thing and frankly whoopdedoo). IMHO it is MUCH worse for game balance that we don't have proper combined movement rules or that trivial battles are not properly implemented, or that there is no option to retreat inside the city before a field battle. The reinforcement thing is really pretty minor set against that, and the gains from doing 3 phases (diplomacy, reinforcement and economics) simultaneously would be quite significant in terms of time saved.

Our current PBEM group is averaging at less than 1.5 turns per month. That gives us an estimated play time of 7 years :(


Soapy Frog:

I as a French player like to review where everybody placed their factors. This may seem less important in the early years of the game but as other MPs gain money and manpower then more and more forces are placed thus making the changes MUCH more significant i.e. placing one corps in Jan/05 doesn't make me want to see it alot but in 1812 when Russia places several corps and a leader then I WANT to see it before I place my factors ... (IMHO)!







dodod -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 2:04:55 AM)

Marshall...

I don't think you read my initial post...If everyone does reinforcement EXCEPT france, simultaneously, and sends it to france...

...then france loads the turns SEES ALL PLACEMENT....and then can decide when to move...this would maintain game balance...

we just have france do everyone's turn, in whatever order he/she gets it...then do france's turn...

the other phases...this wouldn't be necessary...

it just would really make the game better....too many games are lost to slow progress...people can die by the time the game gets finished! I would guess it would take an average of 2-3 years per game at the current system with 2 day turnaround...



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 2:10:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: baboune
I don't understand why you believe that simultaneous reinf is such a big issue?

France should be able to react to leader placement by her enemies. GB should be able to react to ship changes (which is a much smaller problem than France has).

Where Charles, Blucher, and Wellington show up on the map tips those players' hands. The base game allows France to react to that, most notably by changing movement order, but also with his own leadership and troop placement.

At the start of a war, this is a huge advantage for France.

The same holds true, to a limited degree, in the other powers. However, none of those are at war nearly as often as France is, nor do they have the great range of choices.

Don't get me wrong: Diplomacy is even more important than reinforcement in this regard. But, to play true to the boardgame during diplomacy would be a disaster for sales. So, they had to come up with a medium in which players had to do their thinking in advance. While there are a lot of holes in this idea, it has pretty much the same effect on everybody. So, relative to diplo as it is now, simultaneous diplo would not be much of a change.

Simultaneous reinforcement would really wreck France's game.

NOTE: GB's game has already been damaged by the current rules. I don't understand why she was placed near the start of reinforcement. She should be going next-to-last, just before France.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 2:33:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Jimmer it's pretty clear you lack perspective on this issue. Streamlining something like the reinforcement phase would be well worth the small price paid in terms of game-mechanics. I'm not sure if you've PLAYED PBEM lately but at this point it is very unlikely that a Grand Campaign would take less that 3 or 4 years of consistent play to complete.

I find it a bit laughable that you seem to think the integrity of the game hinges on the sequence of reinforcement, esp. based on the other missing/changed rules which you have essentially apologized for/endorsed in other threads.

I'm trying to figure out what would make you laugh.

I don't like PBEM and the changes it requires AT ALL. However, it's the only way to get the game playable at this time. So, we play EIANW, and not EIA. With that, we must accept the dumbed-down version, at least in the short term.

NOTE: This has NOTHING to do with EIA vs. EIH vs. EIANW.

There are three components to the game EIA that can be called its "heart" (that which sets it apart):

Diplomacy
Troop Organization (including leaders)
Combat system (land)

Diplomacy? I've dealt with that: It can't be corrected in PBEM. The diplomacy changes that are in place essentially force a power to think through all possible decisions in advance. In order to have a playable PBEM game, this really has to be done.

Troop organization? That includes most of reinforcement, leader ratings, corps sizes, mobility, etc. A major component of this is how said troops are placed on the map. I.e., the reinforcement phase.

Combat? This has only changed in marginal ways. Without the other two, though, I submit that this one is irrelevant.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 2:38:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Yes. Why in gods name would anyone use the OSI model these days (or ever for that matter)? It's really only being used as an academic teaching tool.

I don't really see how this is a code problem as much as it is a "figuring out the states" problem. Once the state machine is established, the coding is not that difficult (if the state machine is good).

I didn't say anybody would. I asked if you had.

I have not (programmed against networks). But, I've worked in development long enough to know that it's no trivial matter to interact with a network (any protocol). I couple that with Marshall's statement that it would have delayed release by 2 years. Frankly, that's enough for me.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 2:41:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Tell me how taking away France's ability to review other nation placements does not affect balance?
I'm puzzled at how a French player would accept this????????

Excellent point. But, since I've already said this, I can predict that it won't go over very well in this crowd.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 2:44:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
...
Placement of leaders is the only significant thing and frankly whoopdedoo).
...

I believe it was you who stated that I lacked perspective. Amazing. Simply amazing.



Jimmer -> RE: It's been said before but... (6/24/2008 2:55:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Soapy Frog:

I as a French player like to review where everybody placed their factors. This may seem less important in the early years of the game but as other MPs gain money and manpower then more and more forces are placed thus making the changes MUCH more significant i.e. placing one corps in Jan/05 doesn't make me want to see it alot but in 1812 when Russia places several corps and a leader then I WANT to see it before I place my factors ... (IMHO)!

Actually, I think it is the MOST critical the first time it happens. In a way, the following times are less critical (although, still really important).

This game is all about France and GB. Really, France, with GB as a sidelight in the "of critical importance" spotlight. Napoleon was famous for one thing (in war) above all else: He always knew exactly where his opponents would be and who was leading them. Arguably, it wouldn't be until Patton that we would have another leader as painfully obsessed with his opponents.

However, I understand the other guys' point, too: PBEM is too long. This is why I suggested the compromise position:

Have France go last in reinforcement.
Have GB go just prior to France.
Have everybody else go together.

This isn't perfect, either, but it makes the dominant powers dominant again (to a degree). vs. simultaneous reinforcement. The GB part isn't really needed, either. I just think it makes sense in light of GB's naval dominance (which was at least the equal of France's land dominance -- but not as important to the game).

Furthermore, one extra step could be taken (on a computer, that is): In reinforment phases where GB is not at war with anybody except France and her controlled minors, lump GB in with the rest of the powers as well. I would readily accept this compromise, since it covers almost all of the bases, without losing hardly anything (Austrian and Spanish players might disagree :)).



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125