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

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/19/2008 5:22:18 AM)
good point Todd, but that is all automatic in the game anyway, so it is the same as any group that had a house rule that all DoW's and answers to calls to allies had to be written down and done at the same time.

iamspamus -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/19/2008 12:37:51 PM)
Agree, thresh. We played it phase by phase in EVERY game I was involved in (10 or so). This did make it a bit slow sometimes. On a fast day (ie. no war) we got through 9 or 12 months. On a slow one (ie. lots of war or multiple wars) we got through 3+. It just goes slowly. Jason quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh quote: On this last point, I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Borner. It is unfortunate that the game is hamstrung by a strict adherence to the phase schedule, which was the first thing to be thrown out the window by any group that played the board game. No,it wasn't. In fact, the few times I've played where they were all combined caused more headaches in the long run. Wait until you get DoW'd by someone who was suppose to be your ally, or you get Called as an ally and you can't answer because you forgot to include it in your orders. Todd

baboune -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/20/2008 1:39:17 PM)
Hi, Matrix, how about my money back ?

tgb -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/20/2008 2:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: baboune Hi, Matrix, how about my money back ? [:D][:D][:D][:D]

baboune -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/20/2008 5:44:42 PM)
No I am serious. I barely played the game except for trying an MP game (we only got into Mars 1805 after 5 months of play and then two players quit). I have felt like a beta tester for something I do not like and will never play again. I paid good money for this game, and I believed matrix when they said they would fix it. In the other threads, Matrix clearly acknowledges the problems etc. Summary, I am fed up with waiting and want my money back. So Matrix, will you get (yes or no) send me back my money? Any official answer from Matrix will do. And if this is not read or acknowledged I will post it as a new thread for higher visibility.

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/30/2008 7:04:53 AM)
You can only fix things that are broken. This game isn't broken, it is doing nearly what they wanted it to do, and it's getting closer everyday. But that doesn't make this game any more playable. I think baboune should get his money back. The game is way too expensive for what it offers. Solo play is useless except for learning the rules and pbem is incredibly frustrating. I have one fellow who thinks a game should move along at a phase a day: that's seven nation phases to complete the whole phase. My experience is that it is more like one day per nation phase, and then sometimes more. So if you're into long drawn out boredom, this is pure gold. What the game seriously lacks is any sort of interesting bits. such as following moves of other players (it's great that you got rid of the erratic jumping, but it really needs to be fluid motion showing where the unit came from and where it's going to) recapping battles (summaries for non-participants) reviewing battles (an ability to go back to see what happened in a battle you were involved in) a good summary of your own forces (i have 10 infantry and 1 cav in a corps. How do I know it's maxed out?) a means of tracking strengths of other countries (this one pisses me off: if you're not involved in a battle, you have no inkling of what is coming at you. The entire grande armee could be next to berlin and you wouldn't know whether it's 5 corps of 5,000 troops or 5 corps of 100,000 troops.) file sizes are ridiculously large having to rely on a method outside the game to send files? WELCOME TO 1985. phase passing when it's impossible for someone to do anything: prussian fleet? sure, they may build or acquire one, but until that day arrives, how about a phase pass? seriously, if you can't hire someone to make this game tcp/ip friendly, you're not looking in the right places. Then again, the game as is wouldn't work online. Lose the UGOIGO mentality and think up a viable workflow that is entertaining and playable. Does everyone really need to make their builds in order? How about having a general phase where everyone sends their turn files at the same time to the host, who then processes them? That would save a week per turn in itself!

Mardonius -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/30/2008 1:23:25 PM)
There are certainly improvements that can be done to accelerate and improve the game play. I believe that these are being done, as is evident on Mantis Bug Tracking System. I am, indeed, a bit frustrated, at times, about how long some of these chages take but I am a not a programmer so really don't have a perspective about how long they need to take. So my impatience is really not much more than a kid wanting Christmas to speed up.[;)] As far as Game Speed in a Multiplayer Game goes, much of the variability of the speed of a game is due to player discipline levels. I am in one glacial "game" that does nto even merit the name game as it moves way too slow. However, this is not a symptom of the program, it is a symptom of the players and their speed and their enforement of a time table. Even with the approx 40% time improvement (Thank you Gaz, I think you summed it up nicely), Glacial is still Glacial. I am in another Game where we get most of a phase per day. We are now in November of 1807 and have been ticking along nicely and having a grand old time. We manage at this quick tempo because we enforce the 24 hour time limit and endeavor to get the average turnaround in under 6 hours. When someone goes out of town, we allow a trusted ally to play their moves. Another 40% in time savings will have us moving even faster. So choose whom you play with carefully... and ensure that you all adhere to a rigorous timetable and you'll have fun (PLAYABLE)... if you don't, you'll wither of boredom (NON PLAYABLE). Discipline is everything. Semper Fi, Mardonius

DCWhitworth -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/31/2008 10:32:20 AM)
I think threads like this are pretty pointless. It seems to rapidly break into two camps, those who think the game is pretty good and those who are irreconcilable. The latter have got fed up and nothing Matrix does is going to make them happy.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/31/2008 1:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth I think threads like this are pretty pointless. It seems to rapidly break into two camps, those who think the game is pretty good and those who are irreconcilable. The latter have got fed up and nothing Matrix does is going to make them happy. Actually, only your post is pointless. This thread serves as a "customer review" thread in which people can read specifics about why the game is good or why the game is bad and where the future of the game is going. I also disagree that no matter what Matrix does some people won't be happy. This is just lazy thinking, IMO. If Matrix could fix this game so that it was EiA and THEN add all the extras as options I think that could make everyone happy. NOW, the fact that Matrix has gotten so far into this game and refuse to do this is another story altogether.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/31/2008 2:55:35 PM)
I think Neverman makes a good point. Matrix did make a huge mistake early on. The assumed that the few people posting in the forum while this was under design, had the same views as the rank and file customer would have. As such, we have computer EiH. In several posts I think you can see Matrix admit to this. So, now what? Personally, I would like to see them do EiA, but I am worried that things are too far along for this. Plus, what new bugs will jump up if you go back to the old map - even as an option - and change the rules for the minors? I will say that the new updates seem to have less bugs than the old, so there clearly is some progress. As or TCP/IP, most games I am in have players from several nations, not just different time zones, so how many games will really have 7 people all able to sit around a computer at the same time? And is this worth the effort on the part of Matrix at this point when there is clearly so much else that needs looked at?

obsidiandrag -> RE: playable yet? Part II (10/31/2008 3:40:44 PM)
Sorry but this has just been bugging me through out reading this thread... How do you find out what the people want? How do you find out how they want it? You release the game, you offer a forum where they can communicate and discuss which way the game should go and how it should or should not be played and look for ideas of improvement. By offering the game to the public they have opened a can of worms but in my opinion in the long run WILL make for a better product. I understand how people can take things personnal when someone does not agree with their point of view but they do not need to bash eachother publicly about it. I find the game playable and enjoyable, yes there are still bugs and I am finding new ones but rather then gripe about it I am trying to help make the game even better. By voicing my opinion with the masses to agree or contradict so Matrix can get a better feel of which direction to go with the game. Some things I have agreed with and some I have not. To make the AI more challanging I set them to Hard and add more victory points to my bid against the computer. See how long it takes you to rule the world as Turkey... I long for the TCP/IP as my schedule does not support the PBEM but would a TCP/IP as I can set aside a day for it, but that one day will not make people happy if I only can complete one phase... Thanks for the space to vent

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/1/2008 8:14:18 AM)
quote: As far as Game Speed in a Multiplayer Game goes, much of the variability of the speed of a game is due to player discipline levels. Within the confines of the game, yes. But I'm referring to game design. What if they made the game so that you had to send an email and get confirmation from everyone every time you move a corps? Then you would be limited to how fast you can go by how disciplined your game mates are. Wait! We don't need verification! Just sent out the email, once per each corps moved. That's an improvement. A further improvement would be to send the email after you move all your corps. A further improvement would be to bypass your turn if you don't have any corps. Or can't do anything in a particular phase. Why does the economic phase have to be done in a particular order? Do you know what your neighbours build? It isn't done sequentially in the ftf game. The reason it's done here is they don't know how to change the structure of the turn to handle multiple inputs. Why do you have to click on the button for every player phase? If you have the files queued up, why not just load them all and then provide a means of reviewing what happened? I suspect inability to do this. These are not aspects of EiA. These are just bad design choices. This is what makes the game less playable.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/4/2008 4:22:11 AM)
This game is not playable because it's simply too easy to cheat in this game. If you want this game for AI, fine, but if you are interested in playing with other people then forget it unless you know and trust the people you are playing with. Cheating is so easy it's insane. You don't even have to write any kind of hack or rename files or anything. Just simply close out the program or reload the turn before. Amazing.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/5/2008 5:30:46 PM)
Since Matrix has conveniently closed another thread warning players of this game I'm going to post here again. The game continues to have MAJOR bugs. Now maybe these bugs have been around or maybe they are new, who knows, it's so hard to tell, but it really bogs down what otherwise should be a fun game.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/6/2008 12:27:14 PM)
Appreciate the comments Neverman! I apologize for frustrating you ALOT. I will do my best to make it playable for you! :-)

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/6/2008 2:36:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis Appreciate the comments Neverman! I apologize for frustrating you ALOT. I will do my best to make it playable for you! :-) Now you're talking, LOL. That's right listen to my commands!! LOL. [;)]

Tater -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/7/2008 4:00:29 PM)
I just upload the latest patch. I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!!! Look, please don't keep telling me that you are improving the game when such a simple thing as that hasn't been fixed...don't tell me the AI is improved when it is still doing something so egregiously stupid. I feel more like I am being patronized than anything else. I immediately exited the game and I guess I will wait for the next patch with the hope that maybe, just maybe something has actually been fixed that will make this at least a modestly challenging game.

Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/7/2008 11:32:29 PM)
quote: I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!! There are worse setups...

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 12:06:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh quote: I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!! There are worse setups... What? No garrisons?

ndrose -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 1:06:27 AM)
There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 1:35:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ndrose There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary. I agree. It's arguable that all the navy in one port can be a good thing but NOT with 1 garrison, unless you are trying to let loose the British navy on the Spanish (or others).

Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 2:16:39 AM)
Depends on the politics at the time...and your opponents. Sometimes a 1i garrison is a nice enticement, but there are a lot of factors totake into account when placing the fleets. For what the games diplomacy is, a 1i garrison is enough in mostcases. I know playing as France I setup with a 1i Garrison in Toulon, and most of the French Navy there, but I also have a Corps nearby I can move to the area should the need arise. At the same time, the British for whatever reason blockade the restof my fleets in Amsterdam, try landing their Corps there. But the AI has yet to realize that after the British Naval comes my Land, and the COrpsI move into thearea is enough to take care of the British Corps, and the blockade force in Toulon is weak enough that more oftne than not I'llwin the naval combat. Its something I've been looking at pretty closely lately... Todd

ndrose -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 2:36:23 AM)
Yes, the AI "blockading" with an undersized fleet is a problem. If you put the whole French fleet in the Med., GB blockades with a 10-ship light fleet. It almost seems cruel to kill it. The AI also hasn't figured out that if you don't have a garrison, you can't fire the port guns; even if the whole British fleet is blockading an undefended port, they never make a port raid. I think there probably just isn't any code as yet for making that decision under any circumstances.

Tater -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 5:14:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh quote: I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!! There are worse setups... Not really...almost any other set-up would be better. Look, you can try to rationalize it if it makes you feel better. But the fact is ALL of the AI set-ups are terrible. These set-ups are either hardwired in or they are randomly generated based on some seriously flawed criteria. Either way, the initial set-up is an absolutely crucial point in the game. A great set-up won't win a game but a poor-to-stupid set-up can wound an MP for years...maybe even the whole game. I can not take Matrix's claim that they really are all about fixing this game/AI serious as long as something so crucial is not fixed. IOW, the fact that this remains a serious flaw overshadows anything they have said/done to date. Just one guy's opinion...

Tater -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 5:23:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: ndrose There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary. I agree. It's arguable that all the navy in one port can be a good thing but NOT with 1 garrison, unless you are trying to let loose the British navy on the Spanish (or others). Having the French Navy in one port is almost as good (for the Brits) as having it wiped off the board...in my opinion. Leaves the Brits plenty of fleets/ships to go adventuring about. My preferred distribution is to have fleets spread along the channel as well as in the Med. Force the Brit to either disperse & cover or play a goalie strategy. Either way the Brit becomes very vulnerable and isn't free to go scalp minors OR threaten potential French allies.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 5:33:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tater quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan quote: ORIGINAL: ndrose There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary. I agree. It's arguable that all the navy in one port can be a good thing but NOT with 1 garrison, unless you are trying to let loose the British navy on the Spanish (or others). Having the French Navy in one port is almost as good (for the Brits) as having it wiped off the board...in my opinion. Leaves the Brits plenty of fleets/ships to go adventuring about. My preferred distribution is to have fleets spread along the channel as well as in the Med. Force the Brit to either disperse & cover or play a goalie strategy. Either way the Brit becomes very vulnerable and isn't free to go scalp minors OR threaten potential French allies. This is my preferred setup also. I try to occupy as many Brit fleets as possible, but I was trying to be diplomatic.

Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/8/2008 2:59:20 PM)
quote: My preferred distribution is to have fleets spread along the channel as well as in the Med. Force the Brit to either disperse & cover or play a goalie strategy. Either way the Brit becomes very vulnerable and isn't free to go scalp minors OR threaten potential French allies. And that setup can be punished as well by competent players. I've won against it as Britain, and beaten it as France. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter Tater,no matter how wrong it is. :-) Todd

Tater -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/9/2008 4:53:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh And that setup can be punished as well by competent players. I've won against it as Britain, and beaten it as France. No set-up wins or loses the game. After about a year or two, assuming the initial set-up wasn't totally boneheaded (EX: see almost any AI-MP set-up) the value/detriment of the initial set-up is mostly gone. So assuming your opponent(s) didn't just give up after 1-2 years you haven't "beaten" any initial set-up. Also, any initial set-up is only as good as the player using it and as the circumstances dictate...the set-up I describe isn't much good if either the Russian or Spanish decide to help the Brits...but then what French naval set-up would work in such a case. Regardless, if something as simple as a decent set-up (i.e., set-up that actually challenges a human player) can't be managed for the AI then this game really never has a chance of being fixed from a solitaire play standpoint. quote: You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter Tater,no matter how wrong it is. :-) If I am wrong...you haven't proved it. [:D]

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/15/2008 6:12:05 PM)
To steer this back into the realm of playability, there are a lot of actions required by the user in order to facilitate a turn. For example, you need to receive six files before it is your turn again. You have to download them, store them in the commin folder, and hit the process button six times. Every phase. That's a lot of work for a whole hell of a lot of nothing. The only information that is useful is when your turn pops up and you get the FRANCE AT WAR WITH ENGLAND, FRANCE AT WAR WITH PRUSSIA, PRUSSIA AND AUSTRIA ARE ALLIES... messages each turn. Actually, the file load count increases a bit when there are secret battles. A secret battle being any battle that you're not involved in. (Shhhh! THEY'RE SECRET!). Why all battles are secret, I have not received a sufficient explanation. I've tried to get players to broadcast results, but no one seems interested. MARSHALL! WHY ARE BATTLES KEPT SECRET? The only thing you find out is who wins and who loses. We need to rewrite history. AUSTERLITZ: 1805: France won. What more would you want? I believe the grognards are bettle able to ignore battles they're not involved in, although I'm not sure why. When my allies get into a fight, I like to know what it was that beat the crap out of them. So, two points on playability: the atrocious and mundane task oriented turn structure where you have to receive a file from every player, even though this is a sequential turn based game (why can't a single game file be passed from player to player????) total void of information regarding battles when you dont' have to pick a chit (even if you have forces involved).

itmc09 -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/15/2008 7:25:18 PM)
I agree on that. A small report on battles should be available for everybody to look at including: -participating forces -chits picked -round foughts/losses/final outcome. Maybe the easiest way would be to make the final battle screen available for all players to see when they click on the battle location. In the boardgame knowing composition of forces involved, losses and chit picking "habits" was an important factor. Understanding what is happening around you also makes the game more interesting and enjoyable.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875