(Full Version)

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

Message

JParton -> (10/14/2002 3:29:28 PM)
Hi, In reply... "That is exactly why I think simultaneous movement would be faster! Unless everyone can be on line at the same time, you are stuck doing one player's turn per day (assuming one "input" per day) or as you say, an impasse. " How do you propose to run a simultaneous game accross different time zones then? Even a America\Europe game would cross 4 time zones minimum, probably closer to 6-8. I think requiring every player to be on-line at the same time in order to finish a single turn is highly ineffective. All it would take is one person to not show up and all 6 remaining players are screwed. At least in a sequencial move all the players that moved before the slowpoke got their turns in and completed. Now, on the other hand LAN games could easily be ran simultaneously since all the players are probably all together. All it would take to satisfy everyone is make simultaneous movement a server option, and allow people to run passworded 24/7 game servers** The biggest grievance I have about simultaneous movement, however, isn't the speed in which turns are able to be completed but rather the cheats I can see coming out from it- particullarly server side. All a cheating admin needs is a simple program that would allow him to see everyone else's move on the server before he sends in his own. In the board game, France somewhat has this ability by choosing to move last. However, it is offset a bit due to the fact that all the moves on the board are public. If a PC admin can see moves that nobody else can....

Repo Man -> (10/14/2002 8:49:29 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JParton [B] How do you propose to run a simultaneous game accross different time zones then? Even a America\Europe game would cross 4 time zones minimum, probably closer to 6-8. I think requiring every player to be on-line at the same time in order to finish a single turn is highly ineffective. All it would take is one person to not show up and all 6 remaining players are screwed. At least in a sequencial move all the players that moved before the slowpoke got their turns in and completed. Now, on the other hand LAN games could easily be ran simultaneously since all the players are probably all together. All it would take to satisfy everyone is make simultaneous movement a server option, and allow people to run passworded 24/7 game servers** The biggest grievance I have about simultaneous movement, however, isn't the speed in which turns are able to be completed but rather the cheats I can see coming out from it- particullarly server side. .... [/B][/QUOTE] Hmmm, it seems there is more a problem wth semantics than anything else. Let me clarify what I meant by simultaneous movement. By it, I mean each player completes his turn on their own computer. At the completion of the turn, it is sent to the host of the game. Once the host has the all the turn submissions, or at a set time per day, the host generates a new turn, under which each player's orders are processed simultaneously. Again, I am using a model much like Stars! 2.X. My own desire for this model is my own time constraints. While I would love to be able to join a LAN game, it 'ain't happening in the near future. Solo play, or a Stars! based multiplayer are the only two viable options for me right now, and I suspect for most players over 30. Thats not to say LAN play should not be an option. Cheating in these types of games is certainly an issue, although back when I played Stars!, it was not as widespread as it might appear, although host cheating did certainly exist. Perhaps the ability to set up an auto host could help reduce the cheat factor.

Le Tondu -> A good question (10/14/2002 11:36:55 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by someone [B] How do you propose to run a simultaneous game accross different time zones then? Even a America\Europe game would cross 4 time zones minimum, probably closer to 6-8. [/B][/QUOTE] I regularly play Combat Mission with my best friend who is stationed in Mannheim, Germany. I live in California. We don't use any specially dedicated gaming servers. Never have and I don't see any reason to ever use them. The need for those is a myth, I believe. I just start up the game, with my internet connection kept current, and input my buddy's TCP/IP address and voila, --we're gaming. Nothing could be more simple.** He may be eating dinner while I'm eating breakfast, but we're have great fun. You will too. EiA will work fine with simultaneous movement. :)

YohanTM2 -> (10/15/2002 6:56:48 PM)
Space Empires IV has a dedicated host site that makes for excellent simaltaneous movement. It really works well.

*eassault** -> well, seeing as you asked . . . (10/19/2002 8:09:12 AM)
A bunch of things come to mind, but here's what's at the top of the list: Can you keep it interesting for 7 players with different skill and experience levels? What happens when it's 1807 and the RN is wiped out, or France has already unconditionally surrendered twice? Sure, there might be a tight race between Spain and Russia and Austria for first, but all the suspense is gone for someone, and the game still has 80 turns to go. Some possible solutions: (a) automatic victory conditions: make it possible for a country to achieve automatic victory if they're running away with things. Why doesn't EiA have automatic victory conditions? (b) [I'm not sure about this one] divide the game victory conditions into two tracks in 1812. The top three players in January 1812 are now competing with each other for 1st, and the bottom four get a clean slate and play aginst each other in a consolation bracket. (c) Point values went up in later rounds of Family Feud, they go up in later rounds of Jeopardy, and they do that for a reason: the viewing audience likes a game with suspense. Players do too. Double all VPs earned in 1812-1814, and triple VPs earned in 1815. This game mechanic would make an 1812 invasion of Russia make sense as a big gamble that could do it, and make Napoleon's 1815 campaign an interesting gamble - "The final jeopardy category today is 'Waterloo', how much do you want to wager?" Next on the list is a surrender rule that could explain the surrenders at Ulm, Bailen and Lisbon, none of which can be explained under the EiA rules. Jon

oleb -> (10/19/2002 4:36:38 PM)
One thing that hasnt been mentioned yet. I hope that something will be done to prevent unhistoricaly large forces to accumulate over the years, a maintenance cost based on number of factors instead of corps would be the best way to counter this.

JParton -> (10/20/2002 1:03:19 PM)
Repo, I like you idea about being able to send your order in and having the server automatically update everything after a set time. That would be a good way to counter slow players. Snooze and lose lol. As a bonus, it seems to me that it could easily be ported to handling a standard PBEM EiA game as well, since the server would aready have program code to process turns in set (hopefully adjustable) time periods. Same deal as simultaneous moves..those that don't send their turn in on time get passed over. Tondu, I think it is cool that you and one other person from across the world can connect and play, but I hope that you realize you are the exception rather than the rule. Bring 5 more people in the equation and the problems increase dramatically. Repo's idea would prevent forcing everyone to connect at the exact same time, so it wouldn't matter if they lived across the street or across the globe.

JParton -> (10/20/2002 1:17:22 PM)
Assault, To be honest, I can see your situations ending the same as a board game. The losers would bail and the game would start over lol. I like the increased VP idea as an option, especially since in many FtF games I have played most everyone has an idea by 1813 who stands to win, and if Eco manipulation is in play it can reinforce that situation. Having VPs worth more later in game IMO would absolutely create situations where players would go for the massive "end-game" strategy- especially if the game is close. Hell, I would! Waterloo here I come lol I wonder what would happen if only the bottom 4 players from 1813 on got the higher VPs...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875