BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (Full Version)

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



Message

Ashtar -> BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 2:24:03 PM)

Dear Marshall,

I have just discovered that St. Petesburg is not a sensible Russian spot anymore and that you do not want to fix the problem at all since in current engine "there is no way to give Russia two capitals". For the first time I am deeply usatisfied with the status of this project. Did you ever bothered to check playability before introducing deviations?

It is no use to call this an "official deviation", stating that this is EIANW and not EIA after all. Russia HAS to loose tax, manpower and 1 political point each time St. Petesburg gets occupied, otherwise GB will have no way to harm it. Entire EIA campaign revolved around St. Petesburg battles,
you cannot simply throw this away, without seriously altering the gameplay (which is also altered by the lack of naval evasion and the wrong pp gain from naval battles).

Honestly, this is the WRONG approach to the problem, which will surely disappoint all EIA fans who put their money into this game. People mainly bought this game attracted by the solid fame of EIA, you cannot give them a broken game and refuse to fix it. Until now I kept my faith through the bugs and crashes of AN OFFICIAL RELEASE I spent my money on, losing my time in a crashed pbem game which we had to quit and in the many restart and resynch we had to perform to save an ongoing second pbem game through all the problems. I happily endured all of this since I had the hope that sooner or later we would had a working game. So Matrix, please, try to give one to us.

Thanks



Ashtar -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 2:43:48 PM)

Being still in a cooperative mood, I summarize in the following simple way to solve the major problems. I understand you are focused on AI now, and that a commercial product needs an AI to sell, but please try to understand that EIA fans just want a working pbem. I strongly doubt that an AI will ever be a serious challange for an experienced player.

1) St. Petersburg - Essential to keep Russia vulnerable to GB.

a) Even if you say that you cannot have two capitals for Russia, I can hardly believe you cannot
hard code a couple of if in your code for the Russian Eco phase:
IF(St. Petersburg OR Moscow occupied) no tax or manpower.
IF(St. Petersburg AND Moscow occupied) no trade.
IF(St. Petersburg occupied) - 1 pp
IF(Moscow occupied) - 1 pp

b) If this is not possible, you could still save the day by introducing an editor which will allow the
host to change at will current pp, money, manpower and victory points. Of course all other players
should be warned by a detailed message when this happens to prevent blatant chits, but this would
help to correct the effects of a lot of bugs.

c) If neither a and b (Sigh!), at least change the capital from Moscow to St. Petesburg, this will
produce a still unsatisfactory but anyhow better game balance.



2) Naval evasion and Naval combat pp - Another big unbalance
Currently GB can declare war on every major power with ships at sea, attack them by moving first,
being almost sure to win. This way GB can immediately recover the pp lost in war declaration
and weep out a potentially dangerous fleet. Of course, a 2 out of 6 chance of evading attacks
(as per EIA rules), plus a 50% reduction of pp lost/gained at sea battle will make this tactis
much less effective.

a) Add naval evasion in the order roster (without forgetting that after a succesfull evasion
evading fleets have to retreat to a friendly port) and halve pp

b) If you do not want/you cannot add new orders, simply link evasion to intercept orders:
intercept all --> no evasion
intercept weaker --> evade stronger
no intercept --> always evade




DCWhitworth -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 3:59:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Dear Marshall,

I have just discovered that St. Petesburg is not a sensible Russian spot anymore and that you do not want to fix the problem at all since in current engine "there is no way to give Russia two capitals". For the first time I am deeply usatisfied with the status of this project. Did you ever bothered to check playability before introducing deviations?

It is no use to call this an "official deviation", stating that this is EIANW and not EIA after all. Russia HAS to loose tax, manpower and 1 political point each time St. Petesburg gets occupied, otherwise GB will have no way to harm it. Entire EIA campaign revolved around St. Petesburg battles,
you cannot simply throw this away, without seriously altering the gameplay (which is also altered by the lack of naval evasion and the wrong pp gain from naval battles).

Honestly, this is the WRONG approach to the problem, which will surely disappoint all EIA fans who put their money into this game. People mainly bought this game attracted by the solid fame of EIA, you cannot give them a broken game and refuse to fix it. Until now I kept my faith through the bugs and crashes of AN OFFICIAL RELEASE I spent my money on, losing my time in a crashed pbem game which we had to quit and in the many restart and resynch we had to perform to save an ongoing second pbem game through all the problems. I happily endured all of this since I had the hope that sooner or later we would had a working game. So Matrix, please, try to give one to us.

Thanks


Personally I've always thought that St Petersburg rules in the original game made Russia vulnerable in a way that was completely unhistorical. I'm not unhappy to see the change.

Matrix have taken the approach that the computer game will not be a 100% match to the board game for various reasons. I'm prepared to accept that.





Soapy Frog -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 5:57:41 PM)

I think Ashtar is right on the money. St. Petersburg not acting as a Russian capital has a huge impact on game balance.

DCWhitworth I don't think we should accept anything short of a proper implementation of the rules.



NeverMan -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 6:23:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

I think Ashtar is right on the money. St. Petersburg not acting as a Russian capital has a huge impact on game balance.

DCWhitworth I don't think we should accept anything short of a proper implementation of the rules.


It would be great to see the real Empires in Arms, but it's just never going to happen. Now that Matrix has the official license to make EiA (and they chose not to), I guess we should all be happy with whatever we get. It just bothers me because it's like a car company buying up new great technology and then shelving it so that no one else can use it.

I agree that the St. Petersburg thing brings LESS balance to the game, if that's even possible with EiANW since there is already such a lack of balance due to the odd implementation of certain rules and lack of implementation of other rules.



DCWhitworth -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 6:28:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

I think Ashtar is right on the money. St. Petersburg not acting as a Russian capital has a huge impact on game balance.

DCWhitworth I don't think we should accept anything short of a proper implementation of the rules.


So you also want the original map back, privateers removed, corps strengths changed, winter movement removed, diplomacy removed, etc, etc ?

The game is not a 100% faithful implementation of the board game and it never will be. For better or worse Matrix have decided that.

I am glad this game has come out, even in the current form and I'm not going to think its a disaster because one or two rules aren't the same.



Ashtar -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 7:19:39 PM)

quote:

So you also want the original map back, privateers removed, corps strengths changed, winter movement removed, diplomacy removed, etc, etc ?

Winter movement is optional like it was in EIA. Privateers are optional and have a negligible effect anyhow, as much as minor diplomacy which is funny, almost irrelevant and does not really alter game balance. Some corps may have different strength, but this is a minor and will be easily changeable once
the editor will be out. The new map actually adds something to the game without breaking anything important, light and heavy ships will work fine once their pp gain/loss will be fixed...

quote:

The game is not a 100% faithful implementation of the board game and it never will be. For better or worse Matrix have decided that. I am glad this game has come out, even in the current form and I'm not going to think its a disaster because one or two rules aren't the same.

Sadly it is obviously for worse. I accepted the lack of combined movement, since loaned corps more all less compensate for it, I tolerated that single corps cannot ask for reinforce when larger force are close, I swallowed the lack of the maximum 4 corps per depot rule... What I am saying is that the St. Petersburg issue, as much as the lack of Naval evasion unbalance the game and detract from it deepness. That is, I am not complaining this is a different game, I am complaining this is a WORSE one.
I was glad too when the game come out, I happily bought it with download+physical shipping, I enthusiastically played it through bugs and crashes, I faithfully reported bugs in the forum and suggested possible solutions, but I get disappointed when I see matrix
a) repeatedly messing up with important game mechanics without understanding what the outcome will be
b) refusing to fix it (hard to think you cannot add a few extra IF in the Russian eco phase).



pzgndr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 7:57:51 PM)

quote:

I get disappointed when I see matrix ... refusing to fix it


I do not see this at all. Marshall and Matrix have been very forthcoming in acknowledging deficiencies and committing to resolving them. It may take time, longer than expected, and some priorities may not match what some players may want. So be it.

AFAIK, Marshall is still considering what to do about St Petersburg. He mentioned a workaround if possible. I don't recall him ever saying he cannot or will not fix the problem at all. Did he?? If there's a code restriction preventing two capitals, so what? If an adequate workaround accomplishes the exact same effect then players should be OK with that. I'd say be patient and let's see how this and the rest of the bug list eventually gets worked down? [:)]



NeverMan -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 7:58:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar


b) refusing to fix it (hard to think you cannot add a few extra IF in the Russian eco phase).



This is the thing that really boggles me. What's wrong with the code that this is not fixable? How 'static' is the code?

pzgndr: Yes, he did say it was not fixable, so it wasn't going to be fixed. Marshall posted that in another thread regarding the St. Pete's issue.



baboune -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 8:09:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I guess we should all be happy with whatever we get.


You drunk? I am not going to be happy until I get a decent game.



baboune -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 8:15:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
So you also want the original map back, privateers removed, corps strengths changed, winter movement removed, diplomacy removed, etc, etc ?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Diplomacy was part of the game if you mean the influence/ally part then yes I want it removed. And probably yes, yes..



pzgndr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 8:38:52 PM)

quote:

pzgndr: Yes, he did say it was not fixable, so it wasn't going to be fixed. Marshall posted that in another thread regarding the St. Pete's issue.


Did he really? I still do not see that...

quote:

It may sound simple but I have no way of indicating two different capitals for the same MP.


quote:

If I can figure out a workaround then I will.


quote:

It's NEVER been coded that way just because it couldn't.


OK, for whatever reason he cannot code two capitals for the same MP. So what? If and when he figures out a workaround to accomplish the exact same economic effect if either Moscow or St. Petersburg is occupied, then that should resolve the issue. I don't see why a satisfactory workaround cannot be coded. There's a heck of a lot you can do with IF-THEN-ELSE statements in a code.

Again, AFAIK, Marshall has not said this issue never going to be resolved. Has he? Nor has he or Matrix stated they do not "want" to fix this and other issues. I can appreciate his noncommittal responses since he probably is still trying to figure out a viable solution before he says anything. So, give him time to figure it out.



Soapy Frog -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 8:43:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I guess we should all be happy with whatever we get.

No.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
So you also want the original map back, privateers removed, corps strengths changed, winter movement removed, diplomacy removed, etc, etc ?

Yes. And someday we will have a classic EiA rulset, even if I have to code the thing myself.

Also I am very tired of people apologizing for bugs like this by saying "oh actually it's better this way". It isn't. It is in NO WAY an improvement. The Advanced Naval Rules would be an improvement. This is a bug that breaks the game.



baboune -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 8:44:33 PM)

I agree! Wait and see.



NeverMan -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 10:05:05 PM)

pzgndr:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1842053

Marshall:

This is a deviation. It may sound simple but I have no way of indicating two different capitals for the same MP.

seaforth7:

Marshall,
Are you saying this isn't going to get fixed? If so that a substantial deviation from the original game. Makes Russia invulnerable from all but France, major balance change. I guess that's also why he didn't loose any political points for it's occupation, another deviation. Why would the manual not state this?

Mashall:
I understand. This may not be great news but I'm not going to hide anything from you guys. If I can figure out a workaround then I will.



Call me crazy, but that's how I interpreted these statements. BTW, I'm not sure what "workaround" means to you but to me it means "rather than fixing the problem directly, we will make it so it appears as though it's been fixed".





pzgndr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 11:19:20 PM)

Lemme get this straight.  IF Marshall figures out and implements a modest workaround to accomplish the exact same economic effect if either Moscow or St. Petersburg is occupied, but one is called a capital and one is not, then this would somehow be unacceptable??  And this would be worth worrying about, how? [8|]



NeverMan -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/1/2008 11:58:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Lemme get this straight.  IF Marshall figures out and implements a modest workaround to accomplish the exact same economic effect if either Moscow or St. Petersburg is occupied, but one is called a capital and one is not, then this would somehow be unacceptable??  And this would be worth worrying about, how? [8|]


I guess you don't believe in "if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right" motto. No problem.



Ashtar -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/2/2008 12:05:20 AM)

quote:

Lemme get this straight. IF Marshall figures out and implements a modest workaround to accomplish the exact same economic effect if either Moscow or St. Petersburg is occupied, but one is called a capital and one is not, then this would somehow be unacceptable??


Of course not, this would be great!

But I have got the impression - and call me malicious if you want - that this is a rather low priority for Marshall, which seems tempted to drop the issue.

It is my opinion, on the other hand, that these two issues (St. Petersburg and Naval evasion) together with the battle pp for loaned corps and fleets issue which is addressed in patch 1.3 are VERY important for game balance and should be high in the priority list.

I can understand crashing bugs being even more urgent, and commercial reasons suggest AI should be fixed soon (even if I guess it will be never good enough to be a threat) but I would much like Marshall to commit for fixing these two issues by 1.4



Marshall Ellis -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/2/2008 12:22:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Dear Marshall,

I have just discovered that St. Petesburg is not a sensible Russian spot anymore and that you do not want to fix the problem at all since in current engine "there is no way to give Russia two capitals". For the first time I am deeply usatisfied with the status of this project. Did you ever bothered to check playability before introducing deviations?

It is no use to call this an "official deviation", stating that this is EIANW and not EIA after all. Russia HAS to loose tax, manpower and 1 political point each time St. Petesburg gets occupied, otherwise GB will have no way to harm it. Entire EIA campaign revolved around St. Petesburg battles,
you cannot simply throw this away, without seriously altering the gameplay (which is also altered by the lack of naval evasion and the wrong pp gain from naval battles).

Honestly, this is the WRONG approach to the problem, which will surely disappoint all EIA fans who put their money into this game. People mainly bought this game attracted by the solid fame of EIA, you cannot give them a broken game and refuse to fix it. Until now I kept my faith through the bugs and crashes of AN OFFICIAL RELEASE I spent my money on, losing my time in a crashed pbem game which we had to quit and in the many restart and resynch we had to perform to save an ongoing second pbem game through all the problems. I happily endured all of this since I had the hope that sooner or later we would had a working game. So Matrix, please, try to give one to us.

Thanks


I hear you and understand. This was tested MANY times. I see these as large deviations as well and I will look at ways to introduce these to the game. I do not know when yet.

The two capital scenario may force me to make DB structural changes that will OBSOLETE ALL current games! That OK?











Marshall Ellis -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/2/2008 12:25:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

pzgndr:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1842053

Marshall:

This is a deviation. It may sound simple but I have no way of indicating two different capitals for the same MP.

seaforth7:

Marshall,
Are you saying this isn't going to get fixed? If so that a substantial deviation from the original game. Makes Russia invulnerable from all but France, major balance change. I guess that's also why he didn't loose any political points for it's occupation, another deviation. Why would the manual not state this?

Mashall:
I understand. This may not be great news but I'm not going to hide anything from you guys. If I can figure out a workaround then I will.



Call me crazy, but that's how I interpreted these statements. BTW, I'm not sure what "workaround" means to you but to me it means "rather than fixing the problem directly, we will make it so it appears as though it's been fixed".





Please don't think that I operate this way! I will not make it so that it appears to be fixed without fixing it??? My workaround statement means that I must look at a way to implement a rule into the engine that was not in the original design.

Maybe I should say a little less???





NeverMan -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/2/2008 12:31:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

pzgndr:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1842053

Marshall:

This is a deviation. It may sound simple but I have no way of indicating two different capitals for the same MP.

seaforth7:

Marshall,
Are you saying this isn't going to get fixed? If so that a substantial deviation from the original game. Makes Russia invulnerable from all but France, major balance change. I guess that's also why he didn't loose any political points for it's occupation, another deviation. Why would the manual not state this?

Mashall:
I understand. This may not be great news but I'm not going to hide anything from you guys. If I can figure out a workaround then I will.



Call me crazy, but that's how I interpreted these statements. BTW, I'm not sure what "workaround" means to you but to me it means "rather than fixing the problem directly, we will make it so it appears as though it's been fixed".





Please don't think that I operate this way! I will not make it so that it appears to be fixed without fixing it??? My workaround statement means that I must look at a way to implement a rule into the engine that was not in the original design.

Maybe I should say a little less???





Honestly, I'm sure it's not you. I think that this project just has this feel all around. Maybe the word "workaround" was the wrong term.

I don't care if a good improvement ceases all current games.



pzgndr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/2/2008 12:48:05 PM)

Sounds to me like Marshall is very committed to resolving these issues one way or another.  Sounds good to me.  [sm=00000436.gif]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/2/2008 2:32:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Sounds to me like Marshall is very committed to resolving these issues one way or another.  Sounds good to me.  [sm=00000436.gif]


This is correct. I will constantly be working to make this thing perfect!




baboune -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/2/2008 6:06:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is correct. I will constantly be working to make this thing perfect!



hehe... Perfect? [&o]



JavaJoe -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/3/2008 12:13:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Sounds to me like Marshall is very committed to resolving these issues one way or another. Sounds good to me. [sm=00000436.gif]


This is correct. I will constantly be working to make this thing perfect!




Now I know you're insane.[sm=00000117.gif]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/3/2008 5:06:49 PM)

In software, just because you know you cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean that you should not try! It's like trying to get to infinity. You know you never will BUT you might get close :-)





StCyr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/5/2008 1:26:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
In software, just because you know you cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean that you should not try! It's like trying to get to infinity. You know you never will BUT you might get close :-)



oh well, I just recall your first statement about the gamemap - that you refuse to make any changes to it (change the design towards the original) and by that this should not be open to discussion... you got so much input during all these years from so many people addicted to this game, ignoring so much of it... and now you speak about a try to achieve perfection.
And what kind of perfection you may think about ? Having no problems to offer this game to the public -ie with silly sucide corps going to die for sure in a last counterattack in a hopless battle for the lost capital (with 1:20 ratio), no naval evasion etc etc - I really fear you still donīt fully understand what this game is about. ADG EIA is a wondeful balanced game, and to excuse your design being imbalanced by your own coding seems somewhat weak.


Dear Marshall - IF you are really looking for perfection, you should protest whenever one of your fans shows up like this:
quote:

The game is not a 100% faithful implementation of the board game and it never will be. For better or worse Matrix have decided that.

or
quote:

I guess we should all be happy with whatever we get.


(By now, Matrix EiA single play is useless, and a multiplayer game takes much longer than a well moderated pbem original EiA and also misses several essentials.)



pzgndr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/5/2008 2:02:02 PM)

Always with the negative waves StCry, always with the negative waves. [8|]

I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know. Woof, woof, woof! [8D]

Too funny. IT'S JUST A GAME!!! Get a life man. [;)]



StCyr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/5/2008 5:35:17 PM)

quote:

Always with the negative waves StCry, always with the negative waves.


no no no no [:-], thats not true- not always. I recall my last post some time ago- I really tried to give a helpfull neutral answer to Marshall concering a supply question. I also suggested to recall about Alternate Dominant Powers, if there is the intention for a realistic diplomatic AI- oh, and long long time ago I was the first to point out what damage would be done to the game if Tactical Maximum Rating would be skiped as intended. So "always negative" isnīt true.
(Btw I promised to order 2 copies of Matrix EiA if the TMR would be included, and I really did order (and pay for) 2 copies... too sad, only one arieved, but thats another problem...)

Well... I feel negative about this game by now- in general a PC should be able to speed up the game, but right now the opposite is true. There are still so many basic essentials running bad- and Marshall speaks about perfection, where to go next, other gamers ask the "AI" to cheat, to be happy with whatever we get etc
Thats not "too funny", thats depressing - just as the life I got, thanks [;)]





pzgndr -> RE: BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations) (7/5/2008 7:33:42 PM)

quote:

There are still so many basic essentials running bad


I can't disagree with you there. But I remain optimistic and patient that all the items on the bug list will eventually get worked off and the game will shine. That should be the goal. Move forward into the future, yes? Make it happen. Git 'er done. Nothing to it but to do it. Sunshine and rainbows ahead. [:)]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875