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

fvianello -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/15/2008 11:40:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: itmc09 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. The participating forces (counted as corps), chits picked, round fought, losses and final outcome are all listed in the game log. The number of factors involved in the battle is not reported - I agree with this approach as during the game you cannot see how many factors are in other players' corps, so the same degree of fog of war is applied during battles. Of course, an allied player directly involved in the battle can pass you the information, and that's perfectly legal and coherent with the EiA "game style".

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/16/2008 1:49:10 AM)
In the FtF games I played total factors was public knowledge before the battle started. Should this not be the case?

Mardonius -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/16/2008 2:52:22 AM)
In land battles factors should be hidden until after chit selection is revealed. After that they should be known to all players. There is no way to keep these kind of things secret from anyone who wants to know. Moreover, the whole idea of PP accounts for nations advertising the scale of their victories....

itmc09 -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/16/2008 1:46:25 PM)
[&:] Am I missing something? Im my PBEM games all I can see in the log is where the battle is and who wins/loses. Nothing about chits/losses/force composition. Where in the log is this information? Also in the original ftf EiA everybody could see the full information on the battle after the chits selection, there should be an option for that. quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca The participating forces (counted as corps), chits picked, round fought, losses and final outcome are all listed in the game log. The number of factors involved in the battle is not reported - I agree with this approach as during the game you cannot see how many factors are in other players' corps, so the same degree of fog of war is applied during battles. Of course, an allied player directly involved in the battle can pass you the information, and that's perfectly legal and coherent with the EiA "game style".

fvianello -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/16/2008 1:51:52 PM)
itmc09, check the "Fog of War" option....it reduces the amount of public info about a battle

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/16/2008 4:09:45 PM)
quote: In land battles factors should be hidden until after chit selection is revealed. After that they should be known to all players. There is no way to keep these kind of things secret from anyone who wants to know. Moreover, the whole idea of PP accounts for nations advertising the scale of their victories.... quote: Of course, an allied player directly involved in the battle can pass you the information, and that's perfectly legal and coherent with the EiA "game style". With the power of the computer, the game should be able to share this info automatically. Clicking on an enemy corps could reveal last known information. But such information is perishable and players would rely on it at their own risk, since corps strengths can be rearranged during reinforcement phases and during movement if a garrison is available for exchanging factors. If implemented, maybe maintain battle information for about 3 months max?

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/16/2008 4:15:59 PM)
Here's a battle I just simulated: 1805, Jan Great Britain Wins Battle Of Amsterdam 1805, Jan France loses -1pp 1805, Jan Great Britain gains +1pp 1805, Jan France Breaks, Great Britain Wins! 1805, Jan France Pursuit losses: , 3 Infantry 1805, Jan Great Britain Pursuit: Class:5 Die:3 Mod:0 Net:3 Perc Loss:30 1805, Jan France Casualties , 1 Cavalry 1805, Jan Great Britain Casualties , 1 Infantry 1805, Jan R2: France Die 0, Perc 5, Mrl 0.50 1805, Jan R2: Great Britain Die 3, Perc 10, Mrl 1.40 1805, Jan France Casualties , 1 Infantry 1805, Jan Great Britain Casualties , 1 Infantry 1805, Jan R1: France Die 1, Perc 5, Mrl 0.20 1805, Jan R1: Great Britain Die 4, Perc 10, Mrl 1.00 1805, Jan Day 1 CHITS Great Britain:Assault France:Esc Counter Attack 1805, Jan France, 1 corps 1805, Jan Great Britain, 2 corps 1805, Jan BATTLE:Amsterdam Attacker:Great Britain Defender:France 1805, Jan Great Britain Attacking France at Amsterdam This is fine and dandy as part of a log file. I THOUGHT I BOUGHT A FRIGGIN' GAME!!!! I don't need to spend my time sifting through log files, that's part of my 50 hour a week job! Here's a spec for Marshall: Right click any territory. Options BATTLE SUMMARIES List all the battles that occurred in that territory User selects one of the battles Battle summary screen pops up listing leaders, forces, strengths, chit selections, losses by round, outcome. I understand, it's not part of the original EiA. You could write down what happened, but who has the time? Perhaps if there was a game moderator who just kept the game moving! Or maybe if you harnessed the power of your dual core 3.0GHz desktop with 500GB of space... I'm sure we could figure out a way to store this information in a database and present it to the user in an attractive fashion. This is the 21st century. How about some 21st century bells and whistles to go with our 18th century historical simulator? Is this playable? YES. But in the same way that I could go out in my yard right now, get a bunch of rocks and re-enact the battle of gettysburg at the person level. I never said anything about how enjoyable it would be.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/16/2008 10:32:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mardonius In land battles factors should be hidden until after chit selection is revealed. After that they should be known to all players. There is no way to keep these kind of things secret from anyone who wants to know. Moreover, the whole idea of PP accounts for nations advertising the scale of their victories.... My apologies if I misstated my case, "before the battle" started meant AFTER chit selection but BEFORE rolls. Sorry for the confusion.

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/17/2008 3:01:15 PM)
How would anyone know what the "Fog of War" option was for? And how far does it extend? I checked the manual. [&:] I was expecting that it would advertise everything, such as on map strengths. It does not. Is the log file the only thing it affects?

pzgndr -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/17/2008 10:47:10 PM)
quote: How would anyone know what the "Fog of War" option was for? Read the latest version notes for the current patch?? From the WhatsNew.pdf document located in your \Empires in Arms directory: quote: Added the fog of war as an option which will regulate the amount of AI vs AI battle info that players see.

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/19/2008 5:53:46 AM)
There's also the bit in the readme. quote: Fog of War: Limits the amount of battle information that is written to the status info window for all to see. Which is a bit different than the 'whatsnew'. So this is just one ridiculously named option. It should be called "Battle Reporting". Fog of war should affect information one has before a battle, not the results of the battle. While this doesn't break the game, I believe it adds a hint of frustration with regards to the playability. I'll not play with limited battle reporting again.

bresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/19/2008 11:51:45 AM)
Fog of war function is currently purely for AI vs AI battles Regards Bresh

iamspamus -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/19/2008 1:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tater 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. I only have an argument with your first paragraph, in one case. If/when Spain losses her fleet, she basically becomes the largest minor (like Sweden). If I'm Britain, I look for a chance to kill the Spanish fleet in one fell swoop. If I'm Spain, I fully garrison Cadiz AND usually have at least a full corps there AND have the potential to place a leader each turn. Now, I'm a bit paranoid, but you can take Portugal, Sardinia, Morocco then Algeria (if needed) without using your "real" fleet. Just enough to move corps, if needed. If GB dows me (as SP), I start to cry foul to RU, FR and TU. Spain's fleet's existence at least gives the potential for hostile action against England if needed. On the other hand, I have seen RU, FR, AU, PR, SP and TU (who had all of their ships destroyed or mostly destroyed by GB), take 2+ years off of fighting to just build ships... That was ugly. England was so far ahead that he had to be taken down like that. No GB trade. I don't remember what the result of that was. Game might have dissolved. Well, enough digression. Jason

fvianello -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/19/2008 8:28:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iamspamus On the other hand, I have seen RU, FR, AU, PR, SP and TU (who had all of their ships destroyed or mostly destroyed by GB), take 2+ years off of fighting to just build ships... That was ugly. England was so far ahead that he had to be taken down like that. No GB trade. I don't remember what the result of that was. Game might have dissolved. That's interesting, it's the same situation I am in my Love & Death PBEM game...too bad you don't remember the outcome :)

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/20/2008 1:38:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Fog of war function is currently purely for AI vs AI battles Regards Bresh They must have updated it. My log file was from me (france) fighting the AI. That is not AI vs AI.

Murat -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/21/2008 3:52:53 PM)
I know I am in the vast minority on this but technically only the fighting powers know what forces are involved (although even that interpretation is left open to debate in the original EiA) and while nothing prevents a player from telling their allies what was there, I don't. In addition, you can often turn last month's I II IV stack into the II III VI stack if you keep forces in proximity to each other.

mr.godo -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/24/2008 6:03:28 AM)
Just one more reason to not buy the game: historical inaccuracy.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/25/2008 3:23:30 AM)
engine overhaul perhaps? [sm=00000028.gif]

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/25/2008 6:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner engine overhaul perhaps? [sm=00000028.gif] After all the chit and chat and back and forth, the bottom line is this. The engine is not robust enough to handle all/most of the things that it needs to be able to do, unfortunately.

Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/25/2008 8:03:41 PM)
I think those people who were expecting to play a game against 6 AI opponents and encounter the same game play idiosyncrasies and subtleties when playing 6 other humans were setting the bar a bit high... Todd

La Provence -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/25/2008 11:17:51 PM)
Playable finally ???? [8\|] No, unfortunately ! Solo : IA ...... sorry, no avalaible IA ! Pbem : Too long, discouraging and tedious !

Mardonius -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/25/2008 11:20:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh I think those people who were expecting to play a game against 6 AI opponents and encounter the same game play idiosyncrasies and subtleties when playing 6 other humans were setting the bar a bit high... Todd Very true. And don't try to get an answer to how high the bar should be set or you will get a very intense discourse on the history of AI and the like...

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/26/2008 3:43:12 AM)
Playable finally ???? [8\|] I would call it marginally playable at best as of now, which is an admitted improvement. Slow, painfully slow at times, but at least there are less bugs around. AI is good to practice, and that is about it, but the same can be said for many games. That being said, Bugs still need taken care of, and hopefully turning it back into EiA will start to happen after a few more upgrades.

Tater -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/28/2008 11:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh I think those people who were expecting to play a game against 6 AI opponents and encounter the same game play idiosyncrasies and subtleties when playing 6 other humans were setting the bar a bit high... I never expected such...nor has anyone asked for such so I am confused as to who "those people" might be. The AI doesn't even perform at the bare minimum. I have played against other AI's in a strategy game (EX: MOO-II) and the AI in this game doesn't even come close. In MOO-II the AI had to manage the activities of multiple other races each with multiple planets, each planet with multiple economic/military aspects. One could defeat the MOO-II AI eventually but at least it presented a challenge.

Thresh -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/29/2008 12:45:39 AM)
IIRC, the AI on MOO used to have to cheat to stay ahead of the curve... Todd

Grognot -> RE: playable yet? Part II (11/29/2008 5:35:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh IIRC, the AI on MOO used to have to cheat to stay ahead of the curve... Todd Indeed. Practically every non-scenario-based strategy game of any complexity greater than, say, Go or poker has given substantial advantages to the AI in order to be competitive. Scenario-based games can be an exception because the scenarios can simply be made brutally one-sided under the assumption that the one giving you the assignment was an Custer-level incompetent who disbelieved in reconaissance or preparation of any kind, which is why you're given just a couple of colonizers to take over a heavily defended planetary base without so much as a single map or any imagery that your drop ship could easily have taken prior to abandoning you, and why you have to reinvent almost every technology from scratch. Write the AI scripts so that they leave one approach open which really didn't need to be, and you can market it as a challenging puzzle game. Free units, free technologies, free resources, punish-the-leader "random" events, omniscience, the ability to flagrantly ignore whole swaths of the rules, completely hardwired pro-AI anti-human collaboration (typically affecting research trading and alliances / DoWs), or so forth. A cheating AI is the norm; it's only a matter of how much and in what ways, and how open the game designer is about it, and what level of control the player has over it. Some don't bother to tell you about it, hide it, or let you disable it -- e.g. in Europa Universalis, the AI navies completely ignore attrition so they can explore or blockade forever, there's no way to disable it, it's not mentioned in the manual, and it'd be rather difficult to miss it if you're paying any attention to their fleets. Even GalCiv, which used AI a selling point, gave the AIs knowledge of the best-colonizable stars as well as asymmetrical diplomacy (hardcoded more favorable towards other AIs regarding tech sharing), IIRC, and may also have used a hammer-the-leader random event model.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (12/5/2008 4:28:30 AM)
I can always count on EiA to stay consistant.... jan 1806. game goes form GB naval, to Turk land phase.

NeverMan -> RE: playable yet? Part II (12/5/2008 3:40:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner I can always count on EiA to stay consistant....� jan 1806. game goes form GB naval, to Turk land phase. Are you talking about Nappys Options game? You must be because this just happened in that game. EiANW: Sorry Russia, no soup for you!!! ps. Stop calling this thing EiA please, it's just not right.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (12/6/2008 12:40:11 AM)
sorry Neverman, you are right, it's EiH. And yes, Options.

borner -> RE: playable yet? Part II (12/7/2008 8:03:47 PM)
Russia went from first to next to last... maybe this is a new feature random movement phases?

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.1875