Version 1.06 notes! (Full Version)

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



Message

Marshall Ellis -> Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 5:18:11 PM)

Hey guys:

I am looking at ways of increasing the maximum number of units BUT in doing this it will make newer games NOT compatible with versions older than 1.06 (i.e could not load a game started with 1.06 in 1.04 BUT could load a game started with 1.04 in 1.06).

I want some brainstorming here to discuss implications (BTW:This is not done yet).

I really do not see any problems other than PBEMers need to make sure that everybody is at the current release.






borner -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 5:34:31 PM)

as long as the upgrades work it seems like what is happening now, progressing from one version to another.



DCWhitworth -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 5:57:18 PM)

Is this an issue at all ? I don't see any reason why someone would want to be loading a game saved under a *later* version of the software. Or am I misunderstanding you ?

You're saying games won't be backwardly compatible ? But hasn't that been the case with several previous updates ?



obsidiandrag -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 6:32:06 PM)

No complaints here (although.. I was wondering if this will be a checkable option or a game changer?)  As there are alot who may not want the un EIA aspect of it all.. 




bOrIuM -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 6:51:40 PM)

what you mean by "increasing the maximum number of units" ?




Thresh -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 9:10:03 PM)

IIRC, There's a limit as to how many units (Corps, Fleets, Garrisons) the program can keep "track" of.  In some situations (France at peace with a ton of money and builds), you can hit that limit, especially when creating garrisons in out of the way cities because the rest are full.

It's a rare occurence, but it does happen.  Not a game breaker per se, but an annoyance when you run into it.

Todd



DCWhitworth -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 9:17:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh
Not a game breaker per se, but an annoyance when you run into it.



Actually I think it *is* a game breaker. We've hit it in a PBEM game with tensions rising and war possibly imminent. As France I'm under pressure from GB, Prussia and Russia. I am reluctant to reduce the number of my garrisons, why should I ? I think they're all important.

And furthermore since it is an overall total and not a nation by nation total reducing my garrisons simply gives a chance for my enemies to increase their's.

This badly needs fixing.



Dancing Bear -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (1/31/2009 9:52:26 PM)

Hi Marshall
I don't see the problem, and I agree with David, that this needs to be an urgent fix (along with the disappearing corps).

1.05 was pretty tough on our PBEM games, and it seems like quite a few games have stalled. What is your timing like for 1.06?

Now, I was thinking (wishful thinking), that if you are changing the database anyways, why not make room for naval evasion while you are at it (maybe not implement it, but at least set the game datbase up to handle it).
D'Bear.



Thresh -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/1/2009 12:23:47 AM)

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time I do think this could be an easy fix.

As to whether or not that garrison at Soissons is really important, it would depend on what other garrisons you have. :-)

I've only ever run into playing Russia, and even then it took a little effort, and a lot of builds.

Hopefully Marshall can adress this one pretty quickly for you.

Todd

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh
Not a game breaker per se, but an annoyance when you run into it.



Actually I think it *is* a game breaker. We've hit it in a PBEM game with tensions rising and war possibly imminent. As France I'm under pressure from GB, Prussia and Russia. I am reluctant to reduce the number of my garrisons, why should I ? I think they're all important.

And furthermore since it is an overall total and not a nation by nation total reducing my garrisons simply gives a chance for my enemies to increase their's.

This badly needs fixing.




bresh -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/1/2009 1:42:27 PM)

Marshall. i hope you soon be able in a not to far away patch.
To add some security.
I dont know if it would need much change in the battle-engine.
To not show chits & rolls after Defender selects, "but still roll dice there", Maybe "show if withdraw was success, but not why to avoid reloads".
If the rolls only show when send back to the attacker (nothing should be gained by the reloading).

Another "enhancement" I would also like a game-option where you could turn off the "1 corps auto-defend-battles. ".
Personally i repeatly see bad chit choises for solo corps.
Like some chits like defend might be fine vs 1 attacking corps, but against 3+ stratetic commanders with several corps it might not be as good.

Regards
Bresh



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/1/2009 6:41:42 PM)

Hey guys:

Games will still be backwards compatible from 1.06 going forward BUT not before 1.06 i.e. 1.07 games could be loaded with 1.06. I have figured a way to make the DB more dynamic in size that should not interrupt a game in progress!

I must put this into 1.06 becuase I want it to be tested a thoroughly! I do not want to rush this!





Marshall Ellis -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/1/2009 6:58:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Marshall. i hope you soon be able in a not to far away patch.
To add some security.
I dont know if it would need much change in the battle-engine.
To not show chits & rolls after Defender selects, "but still roll dice there", Maybe "show if withdraw was success, but not why to avoid reloads".
If the rolls only show when send back to the attacker (nothing should be gained by the reloading).

Another "enhancement" I would also like a game-option where you could turn off the "1 corps auto-defend-battles. ".
Personally i repeatly see bad chit choises for solo corps.
Like some chits like defend might be fine vs 1 attacking corps, but against 3+ stratetic commanders with several corps it might not be as good.

Regards
Bresh


Bresh:

I am adding a new security feature that will report land combat loads. If someone is loading the game multiple times to fight battles mutliple times then it will be reported to ALL players. I'm not stopping it at this point BUT it will become public to all if any patterns exist. This way the host can penalize the player in PP, etc. if he/she wants. I will add more later but let's start with this and make sure it is useful!







delatbabel -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/2/2009 12:47:35 AM)

Integration with an on line die roller would be great. e.g. many on line PBEM players (before EiANW -- i.e. they used things like Cyberboard to control the maps and so on) used things like ACTS and Warfare Project to control their die rolls and chit picks. Every time anyone rolled the dice it was broadcast to all other players.



Tarleton -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/2/2009 1:39:03 AM)

Hi Marshall,

Well, my input is more conceptual in nature, and probably won't be addressed by V1.06, but here goes.

All the options in regards to battle security, results etc. as well as the current time-lag involved in playing the game PBEM, which folks have been talking about could probably be solved by having the engine as is synch with an FTP "Battle Server" or "File Server". The host could handle options, "If country X submits a battle reply, country Y has 12 hours to respond, or a choice will be randomly made for player X, etc."

Wargame companies (Matrix, HPS, et al) are strangely behind the curve on taking advantage of synching software with server support. Most MMRO's, Fantasy Sports, Strat-O-Matic type sports games do. It's very simple, inexpensive software, and given the turn by turn nature of the game, as it is not a real time game, the server space required would be minimal. And Matrix could probably charge $10 a year for the service.

Regards,



obsidiandrag -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/2/2009 5:46:07 PM)

Is anyone else having issues starting 1.06 since the last update??  I had the s/n error, then dragged in the new exec to fix that.. then got the no scenario error..  Dragged in the file to fix that but it did not fix it..??




NeverMan -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/2/2009 7:35:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Marshall. i hope you soon be able in a not to far away patch.
To add some security.
I dont know if it would need much change in the battle-engine.
To not show chits & rolls after Defender selects, "but still roll dice there", Maybe "show if withdraw was success, but not why to avoid reloads".
If the rolls only show when send back to the attacker (nothing should be gained by the reloading).

Another "enhancement" I would also like a game-option where you could turn off the "1 corps auto-defend-battles. ".
Personally i repeatly see bad chit choises for solo corps.
Like some chits like defend might be fine vs 1 attacking corps, but against 3+ stratetic commanders with several corps it might not be as good.

Regards
Bresh


Bresh:

I am adding a new security feature that will report land combat loads. If someone is loading the game multiple times to fight battles mutliple times then it will be reported to ALL players. I'm not stopping it at this point BUT it will become public to all if any patterns exist. This way the host can penalize the player in PP, etc. if he/she wants. I will add more later but let's start with this and make sure it is useful!







Yes, there needs to be more as I don't see this being all that hard to get around (delete some file, change some registry, etc..)



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/2/2009 9:01:32 PM)

It won't pass the NSA standard BUT let's keep an honest man honest... LOL!



bresh -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/4/2009 3:23:12 PM)

Marshall, it wont solve all :)

I encountered a player leaving "playing France, witch can kill many games if players leave because of the security issue".

So i repeat my question, would it require much work, to hide the dice roll and chit on the defenders "when picking chit" and "rolls" ?
As far as i can tell rolls are executed on the defender pc and he will always recieve a battlefile from attacker before he selects his own looses anyway.
It might give 1 extra file exchange in case of succesfull withdraw but thats a tiny sacrifice to gain this much "secutiry".

About reloads in battle phase, this should be used for naval moves.. I seen France break a blockade he had less than 5% chance to do, this is only few people i would trust if this happens, especially if they never any failed attemps..

Regards
Bresh



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/4/2009 7:39:41 PM)

Bresh:

How can they see the chit and the dice now BEFORE they pick?



bresh -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/4/2009 9:32:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Bresh:

How can they see the chit and the dice now BEFORE they pick?



Its still the reload issue, witch would not be a problem if the "rolls/chits" where hidden for defender till he takes casulties.

Its not stupid for someone ask their ally for advice during a combat and a info that someone reloaded a combat file a extra time doesnt mean he naturally would be in the cheat corner.
Advice could be about reinforcements, agree on division on casulties if they had not before, should they commit guards +1/+2 etc.
I have had allies ask me such questions.

Im requesting for it to be hidden, since as it is now, combat rolls are on the defender pc, who then sends the battlefile to the attacker (and does not take his own casulties till in the return battlefile) ?

And note, the naval move-reload button count !

Regards
Bresh




Marshall Ellis -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/4/2009 10:29:26 PM)

Ah! Gotchya!
I think this is reasonable??? I will look at it to see how difficult this is...




delatbabel -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/4/2009 10:45:24 PM)

Instead of just having a third party combat system, allow the die rolls to be entered manually by the defender instead of rolled for by the program. That way a third party die rolling program can be used (e.g. ACTS) and it's fair to everyone. Chit picks can also be managed by ACTS or Warfare Project, as can all naval die rolls, blockade runs etc.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/5/2009 12:48:52 AM)

For what it's worth, we have considered an online die rolling server before - we didn't think there was a real need for it. If that would be a good solution for EIA we may take another look.

Regards,

- Erik



delatbabel -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/5/2009 10:19:22 AM)

Yes, to be able to interface with a die rolling server in some way (as an option) would be useful. Either have the program do it automatically, or have the players do it via a web browser and enter the results manually into the EiANW program. Also chit picks -- technically it's possible to open the attacker's battle file, see what chit he picked, restore from backups, and redo it with an optimum chit pick. Most players handle it these days by having the defender send their chit pick to an ally before the attacker sends his first battle file, but having a chit pick server would be a better way -- both attacker and defender enter their picks blind and they are revealed only when both players have entered. Warfare project's "Secret Keeper" is the way most players did this in the pre-EiANW days.




polarole -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/5/2009 11:19:28 AM)

hi,

or just broadcast any roll the game is making to all players by mail in order to avoid people doublerolling.

bye
ole



delatbabel -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/6/2009 11:12:54 AM)

The problem with broadcasting the die roll from the player's own mail program is that the player could always shut down their MAPI interface and stop the mail going out until he was happy with the die rolls.  Doing them in a central place away from the player's own computer is the best strategy.



NeverMan -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/6/2009 2:22:42 PM)

If you guys decide to use a central server it would be great, as Del suggests, to also have the chits done there. Then once the chit is picked and sent there's no going back, same for the die roll.



bresh -> RE: Version 1.06 notes! (2/6/2009 9:01:02 PM)

Although i see some advantage in a online server.
I fear that at some time its gone, or what if its out of service during certain hours for maintainance etc, certain things could go wrong.

For a game expectely to hold for years for the gamers I would think it better soultion to hide the dice as suggested on the "rolling participant", also a thing like this might not need major changes in coding.

The write self your results, should be implemented in 2. party combat (but there you can not reinforce *dont know if that would be fixed*,
players might find sort of forum with some sort of online dice where they could solve the battles).

Regards
Bresh





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.660156