AM I MISSING SOMETHING???

AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (Full Version)

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

Message

RayKinStL -> AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/18/2008 7:01:07 PM)
SO I am trying to test out a few things, and one of the things I wanted to test involved GB and SPain allying and access being granted. So I started an 1805 GC game, and in the diplomacy phase of both GB and Spain (I set both as human players) I chose to accept alliance. However, I am in May 1805 and SPain and GB have still not allied!!!! I make sure to check every month, and both check boxes are marked, but they refuse to actually make the alliance so I can test the access. Why in the world would this not happen the next month, morethe less 5 months after the startof the game?!!??! Am I missing something here? Has anyone else noticed anything like this? Any help is appreciated. Ray

Tater -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/18/2008 7:44:34 PM)
Did you have one or the other actually ask for an alliance? Just checking the box is not enough. One or the other has to actually ask.

NeverMan -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/18/2008 7:49:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tater Did you have one or the other actually ask for an alliance? Just checking the box is not enough. One or the other has to actually ask. Yes, checking the boxes is not enough for an alliance (although it should be if both are checked, just like the temp access works now). IMO, why have one thing (temp access) work one way and the other thing (alliance) work another way. This creates inconsistency in the game mechanics and makes it that much more confusing for players (as if it's not confusing enough already).

RayKinStL -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/18/2008 11:17:24 PM)
How do you ask for an alliance then? I thought thats what checking the box did?!?!

NeverMan -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 12:22:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL How do you ask for an alliance then? I thought thats what checking the box did?!?! In the DIP phase there is an option that is "Attempt Alliance". You click on the country and then on this button. I know, I know, it's just one of many, many, many, many counter-intuitive things about this interface. It's like the interface was designed in 1988 for C64 or something.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 12:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL How do you ask for an alliance then? I thought thats what checking the box did?!?! In the DIP phase there is an option that is "Attempt Alliance". You click on the country and then on this button. I know, I know, it's just one of many, many, many, many counter-intuitive things about this interface. It's like the interface was designed in 1988 for C64 or something. 1988? C64? Ouch! How would you make the alliances easier? They cannot be automatic. Someone has to ask. Access could be granted without requesting though to make access easier. This was part of streamlining. Was this not a good idea?

RayKinStL -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 1:35:02 PM)
Easy. Put a box on the diplomatic relations screen next to each countrie's name so that you can check a box to "accept alliances" as well as have another box or button to the right of their name that will OFFER an allaince. This way everything can be done form the same screen without having to fly around the map and such.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 2:39:45 PM)
Now there's an idea! A solution without a slam! Wow! Is the world going to end tomorrow??? LOL! Thanks Ray!

NeverMan -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 3:19:29 PM)
Why do they have to ask? If both sides have it checked, it's obviuos that both sides would like to ally, same as the access. Why does alliance have to be any different than the access? You don't request access. Is this a code problem? For the UI, I would have really liked to seen tabs and/or drop down boxes to seperate actions for each country and event, making it clearer to the user what is going on. Right now, in particular, the call allies/answer calls are really counter-intuitive.

Jimmer -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 5:01:20 PM)
I would agree with a change that you don't have to ask for an alliance if both powers have checked the box allowing one.

RayKinStL -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 6:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Why do they have to ask? If both sides have it checked, it's obviuos that both sides would like to ally, same as the access. Why does alliance have to be any different than the access? You don't request access. Is this a code problem? For the UI, I would have really liked to seen tabs and/or drop down boxes to seperate actions for each country and event, making it clearer to the user what is going on. Right now, in particular, the call allies/answer calls are really counter-intuitive. Maybe I am wrong, but you do have to request access (currently by click on the area/nation and the success is determined by a die-roll?!?!?!). Now I know that is with AI games, but any solutions we offer NeverMan must satisfy both camps (PBEM and AI) regardless of how anyone feels about each of them. To this end, I would offer that all "requests" should have buttons next to the country names in the diplomatic relations screen. This may require a slight overhaul on the interface of that screen, but it would be much more intuitive to look for all these "requests" there, than flying around to each country and finding the appropriate button in the bottom-left panel. There could be a buttons next to each country name for...alliance...access...money...and I forget the other requests. This interface would seem to make much more sense and be far more intuitive. Ray edit: I do like the idea that if both players have the box checked, the alliance is automatically made. No sense in not having an allaince both are willing to accept because one person forgot to click the "send request" button.

NeverMan -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 6:27:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Why do they have to ask? If both sides have it checked, it's obviuos that both sides would like to ally, same as the access. Why does alliance have to be any different than the access? You don't request access. Is this a code problem? For the UI, I would have really liked to seen tabs and/or drop down boxes to seperate actions for each country and event, making it clearer to the user what is going on. Right now, in particular, the call allies/answer calls are really counter-intuitive. Maybe I am wrong, but you do have to request access (currently by click on the area/nation and the success is determined by a die-roll?!?!?!). Now I know that is with AI games, but any solutions we offer NeverMan must satisfy both camps (PBEM and AI) regardless of how anyone feels about each of them. To this end, I would offer that all "requests" should have buttons next to the country names in the diplomatic relations screen. This may require a slight overhaul on the interface of that screen, but it would be much more intuitive to look for all these "requests" there, than flying around to each country and finding the appropriate button in the bottom-left panel. There could be a buttons next to each country name for...alliance...access...money...and I forget the other requests. This interface would seem to make much more sense and be far more intuitive. Ray edit: I do like the idea that if both players have the box checked, the alliance is automatically made. No sense in not having an allaince both are willing to accept because one person forgot to click the "send request" button. In PBEM games, if one party has the "grant access" button then access is granted regardless. I just don't see why, at the end of the dip phase, the code can't check for both alliance boxes. Personally, I don't really care, it doesn't bother me the way it is now, but you were complaining about it so I was trying to offer YOU a solution.

RayKinStL -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/19/2008 7:39:09 PM)
Its not that I mind the way it is, now that I know what needs to be done. The whole thing is counter-intuitive though, and buttons on the diplomatic relations screen would simply make sense. I agree that both players checking the "alliance" box should automatically create an alliance as well. And for the record, I had no "complaints" about the system. I simply didn't know how it worked. WHile I agree with most of what has been said in this thread, I can live with it either way now that I know how it works. My initial "complaint" was at frustration of not knowing WHY it failed to work. Now that I know why, I am appeased and have thus rectified the situation. Inever intended this thread to turn into a discussion of HOW to change the interface/code, but it ended up turning into a good place for those conversations to begin.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/20/2008 2:08:31 PM)
I'll look into the possibility of making the checkbox the request and approval. This "should" be pretty easy.

Jimmer -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/20/2008 5:25:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan In PBEM games, if one party has the "grant access" button then access is granted regardless. I just don't see why, at the end of the dip phase, the code can't check for both alliance boxes. It may be that the phasing player's diplomacy construct cannot access someone else's diplomacy construct. There is a chance that this would have to be externalized, so that any player (through the game, secretly, that is) could access each other player's choice.

NeverMan -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/20/2008 11:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan In PBEM games, if one party has the "grant access" button then access is granted regardless. I just don't see why, at the end of the dip phase, the code can't check for both alliance boxes. It may be that the phasing player's diplomacy construct cannot access someone else's diplomacy construct. There is a chance that this would have to be externalized, so that any player (through the game, secretly, that is) could access each other player's choice. Why would one require access to the other? The main construct can access either and should be able to compare the values and then assign the player's ally "construct". This "should" be an easy fix like Marshall said, depending on how robust the code is. If the code was written well this is an easy fix.

Jimmer -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/21/2008 5:28:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Why would one require access to the other? The main construct can access either and should be able to compare the values and then assign the player's ally "construct". This "should" be an easy fix like Marshall said, depending on how robust the code is. If the code was written well this is an easy fix. It would depend on how it was coded. Are there separate databases or database constructs for each player or player/phase? (This might have been done for a host of reasons, including performance and ease of coding.) If so, then one would have to "open" another player's in order to see if the box was checked. To get around that, if it exists, Marshall would have to either open up that check box for viewing by other players, or create a matrix of all players' entries at the beginning of each player's phase.

NeverMan -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/22/2008 3:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimmer quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Why would one require access to the other? The main construct can access either and should be able to compare the values and then assign the player's ally "construct". This "should" be an easy fix like Marshall said, depending on how robust the code is. If the code was written well this is an easy fix. It would depend on how it was coded. Are there separate databases or database constructs for each player or player/phase? (This might have been done for a host of reasons, including performance and ease of coding.) If so, then one would have to "open" another player's in order to see if the box was checked. To get around that, if it exists, Marshall would have to either open up that check box for viewing by other players, or create a matrix of all players' entries at the beginning of each player's phase. At the end of the dip phase check each players alliance boxes. If they match, ally them, this really shouldn't matter how he coded it. For example, if each player's box is in some class. Class player { private: .... bool alliance[6]; ... public: bool getAlliance(int mpAlly); }; bool getAlliance(int mpAlly) { return alliance[mpAlly]; } OR if it's in a database pseudocode: readAlly(); readOtherAlly(); compareAlly(); If it's not coded this way or similar (not sure I would use an array, but it was an easy demostration) then that's a big problem and someone needs to hit Programming101. ;) I could, of course, be way off but I'm not sure why this would be so hard.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: AM I MISSING SOMETHING??? (8/22/2008 4:52:28 PM)
Close enough neverman. This could allow me to pull a button off the bottom panel and just check the alliance box. I too agree this would be simpler. It helps to get an "out of the box" view of the game logic :-)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.839844