RE: playable yet? Part II

RE: playable yet? Part II (Full Version)

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

Message

JavaJoe -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/3/2009 1:33:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner One thing I see with the games I am in, is the high drop out rate from Prussia and turkey. Let's admit it, they are, for most, the two worst nations to play (personally, if France comes through with some cash, Turkey can be quite fun). In a face to face group, players stay around out of loyality, or just to hang out a day with the group if nothing else. PBEM, it seems once things go south, many times those players are done and gone. Not much that can be done about it, but never the less a problem The Uncontrolled Major Powers Rules in the original game would fit the bill. Although I don't think Marshall can get it in before v5.32 [8\|]

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/3/2009 4:40:40 PM)
yes, It would help a great deal....

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/3/2009 4:41:37 PM)
what is it with the Baltic in this game... the Rus transport fleet is messed up in one game, and in another, a Swd corps that was bought to have room for an incoming cav, suddenly is unavailable to place as needed. [:@]

Dancing Bear -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/4/2009 12:54:48 PM)
Hi Borner I know the Marshall is going to ask for a save file and specifics when he gets back. Can you open a new thread, explaining which version you are using and detailing the problems so he can fix them for the rest of us. quote: ORIGINAL: borner what is it with the Baltic in this game... the Rus transport fleet is messed up in one game, and in another, a Swd corps that was bought to have room for an incoming cav, suddenly is unavailable to place as needed. [:@]

Dancing Bear -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/4/2009 1:00:20 PM)
Hi JaveJoe You can probably implement the UMP rules as a house rule, outside of the Matrix game structure, and just subtract the VP bid manually, although this would be a good game feature to incorporate into the game. The drop out rate for players you have clearly been crushed is almost understandable. My feelings on this, is that these players are looking at months to years of playing before they recover, and this is simply too long a period of misery. A faster PBEM game would mean faster recovery in real time, and less players giving up. quote: ORIGINAL: JavaJoe quote: ORIGINAL: borner One thing I see with the games I am in, is the high drop out rate from Prussia and turkey. Let's admit it, they are, for most, the two worst nations to play (personally, if France comes through with some cash, Turkey can be quite fun). In a face to face group, players stay around out of loyality, or just to hang out a day with the group if nothing else. PBEM, it seems once things go south, many times those players are done and gone. Not much that can be done about it, but never the less a problem The Uncontrolled Major Powers Rules in the original game would fit the bill. Although I don't think Marshall can get it in before v5.32 [8\|]

JavaJoe -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/4/2009 7:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear Hi JaveJoe You can probably implement the UMP rules as a house rule, outside of the Matrix game structure, and just subtract the VP bid manually, although this would be a good game feature to incorporate into the game. The drop out rate for players you have clearly been crushed is almost understandable. My feelings on this, is that these players are looking at months to years of playing before they recover, and this is simply too long a period of misery. A faster PBEM game would mean faster recovery in real time, and less players giving up. quote: ORIGINAL: JavaJoe The Uncontrolled Major Powers Rules in the original game would fit the bill. Although I don't think Marshall can get it in before v5.32 [8\|] Does the system allow the same email address to control multiple nations?

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/5/2009 4:25:20 PM)
which gets back into the debat of allowing some phases to be done at the same time by all players. Conisdering how much has changed from the origional EiA, I do not see why some people have an issue with this, given the gains to the overall system that could/would be achieved.

Dancing Bear -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/5/2009 6:21:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner which gets back into the debat of allowing some phases to be done at the same time by all players. Conisdering how much has changed from the origional EiA, I do not see why some people have an issue with this, given the gains to the overall system that could/would be achieved. Hi Borner I don't think any one will debate that this would not improve the PBEM game. And we seem to have a workable solution for dip and eco that the Marshall says is possible without too much work that gets around the I go/you go bottleneck (i.e. at start of diplomacy all players programs believe that they are meant to go first, but as their completed files are sent out, the game modifies their outgoing files so that other players see them in a different sequence. Only one player has to be the last to allow resolution of the diplomacy phase prior to rienforcement. For eco, the preferred solution is to put all eco functions in every third diploamcy phase (i.e. Dec eco functions are completed in the January diplomacy phase), so that a seperate eco phase is completely eliminated. Barring that, the eco phase will be treated like the dip phase described above). What we are missing is time from the Marshall to complete the changes. Until then, we have a PBEM game that is much slower than it needs to be.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/6/2009 3:43:46 AM)
good points

iamspamus -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/16/2009 3:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner One thing I see with the games I am in, is the high drop out rate from Prussia and turkey. Let's admit it, they are, for most, the two worst nations to play (personally, if France comes through with some cash, Turkey can be quite fun). In a face to face group, players stay around out of loyality, or just to hang out a day with the group if nothing else. PBEM, it seems once things go south, many times those players are done and gone. Not much that can be done about it, but never the less a problem Been a while since I've been here. Sorry, new job and all. I like Prussia even more than Austria. Turkey is fun, but you definitely need the cash from France and GB too if you can get it...

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/18/2009 3:08:54 PM)
I hate it when work gets in the way of things! Turkey can be a blast to play if you do it right. Prussia not so much. I have always wanted to try Prussia allied to france from the start, but it would seem to really unbalance the game too much! Only time I have seen it done, GB, Russia and what was left of Austria joined up and we hammered him repeatedly until he was in civil disorder and eventually down to 3 provences.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/18/2009 6:29:10 PM)
I enjoy playing Prussia, it's a challange for sure... it gets much more interesting late in the game. As for being allied with France from the start, that's a slippery slope. :)

Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/20/2009 12:53:17 PM)
I like Turkey the best! If you can get use to the feudals and use them well then Turkey can be a threat.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/21/2009 4:34:10 AM)
if you have the cash, turkey is great..... shocking to see how mnay players as France to not see things that way and buy turk help early.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/21/2009 1:34:14 PM)
You got that right Borner! Cash is King or Grand Vizier in this case :-) You had better line up early with either Fr or GBr (HINT: France typically gives more cash in the AI side)

hellfirejet -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/21/2009 1:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner if you have the cash, turkey is great..... shocking to see how mnay players as France to not see things that way and buy turk help early. You could always play as Turkey and allocate more money to Turkey via the editor [:)]

Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (7/21/2009 1:41:22 PM)
Good idea Graham LOL!

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/9/2009 4:40:24 AM)
new bug. Invading Turkey as russia, and a garrison disappeared between the land and eco phase.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/10/2009 1:58:49 PM)
Do you have the save?

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 2:16:57 AM)
host may have, not sure. It was there when I did my turn, but not after. did a backup, and still not there. just plain strange. not sure if turkey got the money and manpower for the provence or not. at least with the editor the host can adjust the money plus orminus o compensate a little bit.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 2:59:30 AM)
If you can then get the host to send to me and I'll take a look because I haven't had that happen in a while.

Grapeshot Bob -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 4:05:38 AM)
To get us all back on topic the answer STILL seems to be no. If I was Matrix I'd be ashamed to have my name on this piece of crap.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 4:12:37 AM)
careful bob, Erik will drop the hammer on you if you talk like that!!!!

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 4:25:46 AM)
To give an update: It depends, if you are going off of "does the executable work and can you move pieces around on the board, etc.." then YES, it's very playable. If you don't mind disappearing corps, missing/miscalculated PPs/VPs, possible cheating in PBEM games, etc.. then YES, it's playable. If you expect Empires in Arms, then NO, it's not playable.

Grapeshot Bob -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 4:54:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner careful bob, Erik will drop the hammer on you if you talk like that!!!!�� But constructive criticism is the only real fun I get from this game. It has been over a year for goodness sake! I still don't think it will be truly playable in a year from now. I will never buy another Matrix game unless it has been out for several months and gotten good reviews or unless I have beta tested it and seen how good it really is. Trusting them to have something playable shipped is not possible. If Matrix were really concerned they would offer all of us our money back. I'm thinking about suing them to get my money back, could someone tell me what state are they incorporated in? Do we have grounds for a class-action suit? GSB

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 5:10:45 AM)
LOL, bob, I don't think so but you could try... I don't know, I thought Erik was out of Vermont but there is NO telling where the company is Incorporated... either way, it's a funny joke. Seriously though, I think this falls under the "buyer beware" category and the only real action you can take is to not support the company, aka stop buying it's products. Sadly though, it's the only distributor of wargames and it also supports "small business" (if you could call it that, which you could in a sense). They just happened to make some HUGE mistakes when designing this game... again, sadly they continue to make the same mistakes with THIS game; HOWEVER, I hear that WIF is fairing MUCH better (ie. learning from the mistakes that were made with this game, so at least someone, somewhere benefited from our misery).

Grapeshot Bob -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 5:21:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan I hear that WIF is fairing MUCH better (ie. learning from the mistakes that were made with this game, so at least someone, somewhere benefited from our misery). I can vouch for the fact that WiF is going well. I'm helping beta test it. GSB

Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 1:46:26 PM)
Where could I start here? I rarely reply to these threads since it acomplishes little but I'm compelled to do so in this case! Could we have done things differently? Sure. Would I do it differently today? Sure. Do I mind constructive criticism? Nope. Is it playable? Sure It just wasn't the game that you wanted. This was NEVER to be pure "Empires in Arms". It was first "The Wars of Napoleon" then "Empires in Arms, The Napoleonic Wars". We never hid the EiH functions which were added from the start. I'm not saying this was what we should have done BUT it is what we did. We never tried to to hide this??? If I were to do it over then I would have done the pure EiA (Which I really want to add). We've slowly been able to make this more EiA than it was. The difference from 1.00 to 1.06 is that 1.06 is MUCH closer to standard EiA. We've still got time to do this as long as you guys don't get every EiA thread locked up :-)

Erik Rutins -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 2:33:19 PM)
It's completely ludicrous to claim that we somehow don't allow or listen to criticism. That's purely a straw man. We've taken a lot of (justifiable) criticism on this release and have been working hard to improve the game and be responsive to that criticism. I think the game is unquestionably improved, but there are still bugs and there are certainly people who wanted it to be a different game as well. As Marshall said, and I have said as well, we were very up front about the changes to "standard EIA" and most of those were done in response to the pre-release community. We have also been up front about our goal post-release of making "standard EIA" possible, but priority-wise fixes continue to be the main priority. Regards, - Erik

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (8/11/2009 5:13:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis This was NEVER to be pure "Empires in Arms". Then it shouldn't have been named as such simply to take people's money, IMO. I don't think you need to respond to this thread, it just stands, and continues to stand, as a "review" of the game and so long as it continues to get updated it will continue to be just that. Now, I understand that overall it's a negative review so there's a good chance Erik will come along and lock it up.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625